
Book ^ >C ^ 

Gl5#t]<° 



COPSRIGHT DEWlSn: 






Stratagems and Conspiracies 



TO 



Defraud Life Insurance Companies 



AN AUTHENTIC RECORD OF REMARKABLE CASES 



JOHN B. LEWIS, M. D. 

Medical Director and Adjuster^ Travelers Insurance Company 



y 



AND 



CHARLES C. BOMBAUGH, A. M., M. D. 

Medical Examiner for Life Insurance and Editor Baltimore Underwriter 



'Tis strange, but true, — for truth is always strange; stranger than fiction. 
— Don Juan, Canto xiv. 

If this were played upon a stage, now, I could condemn it as an im- 
probable fiction.— Tze/f^i!:^ Night, Act in. 



SECOND EDmON-PFVTiED AND ENLARGED 



^t*ti Ts^flBbo; 



..-^ 



<1- 



> 



James H. McClellan, Publisher vvasVi'-^^"' 

office of the baltimore underwriter ^^^ d '^^ ^ 

BALTIMORE ^ 

1896 



'L3 



Copyright, i8g6. 
By John B. Lewis. 



PRESS AND BINDFRY OF 
THE FRIEDENWALD CO., BALTIMORE. 



PREFACE. 

The first edition of this book appeared in 1878. It was limitt 
fifteen hundred copies, and was exhausted soon after publicativ 
Subsequent applications for copies were attended with disappoiittmen 
and followed with frequently repeated requests for a new edition em- 
bracing the more important additional cases which have occurred 
during the intervening period. The present revised and enlarged vol- 
ume is published in response to this demand, and is commended as 
a trustworthy record to those for whose use and reference it is pri- 
marily intended — life insurance companies and agents, medical exam- 
iners, insurance lawyers, and medico-legal experts. 

Objection has been made that if such a record of ingenious de- 
vices for defrauding the life companies transcends its immediate 
design and purpose, it may prove dangerously suggestive. But it 
should be remembered that a double-edged sword cuts both ways, and 
if these narratives fall within the range of the evil eye, the vision is 
not confined to the exposure of the cunning contrivances and artifices 
of this class of schemers and plotters; it includes picturesque views of 
detection and punishment; of the determined efforts of the companies, 
at whatever cost, to run them down; of the machinery of courts of 
justice; of the gloom of the prison cell; of the dark outlines of the 
scaffold. The cases in this book are for the most part more suggestive 
or instructive to detective agencies than to conspirators. 

To the managers of our life companies these records furnish an 
inpressive object lesson. Collectively they emphasize, as never before, 
the increasing importance of scrutinizing the moral hazard as closely 
as the physical risk, and the need of more watchful attention to the 
question of insurable interest, and its bearing upon assignments. The 
anxiety of the companies to increase the lines upon their books, and 
of the agents to increase their remuneration, has heretofore been 
largely responsible for placing aggressive weapons in the hands of 
intending assailants. It is encouraging to note steady improvement 
in this direction; to observe that the companies are substituting 
quality for quantity, and circumspection for over-confidence. They 



PREFACE. 

alize that in their coming encounters with this form of human 
ity, half-way measures of repression and compromise settle- 
must give way to remorseless pursuit. 

he cases in which important questions of law are involved, the 
»ns of the courts are given at more or less length for convenient 
ice. In addition to the law points, the reader will find in some 
charges of judges to juries concise and careful and compre- 
ive reviewal of the facts, and these are valuable because of the 
irness and the intelligence to which they bear witness. There are 
jut few cases in this volume in which the fairness of the bench is 
questionable. It is quite otherwise with the twelve in the box. The 
perverse prejudice of the average juryman against corporations too 
often results in scandalous injustice, as many of the verdicts herein 
reported prove. If their findings were to end with subversion of 
justice, with expression of contempt of the obligations of the com- 
panies to honest policyholders, and with manifest disregard of the 
sacredness of trust funds, it would be deplorable enough, but as these 
records show, such jurymen serve as scene-shifters for fresh con- 
spiracies, and tempt the malefactors they have liberated to the com- 
mission of new crimes. 

These narratives also show that no community has a monopoly of 
the piratical adventurers who thus prey upon beneficent institutions. 
They are of all nationalities as well as of both sexes, and everywhere 
alike "to no code or creed confined." A remarkable instance of their 
machinations may for a season concentrate attention upon a given 
locality, but the next startling outbreak may be thousands of miles 
away. The offenders vary in character from the smooth and polished 
and educated scoundrel to the coarse and vulgar and illiterate outlaw ; 
some of the actors in the drama rise to the higher realms of comedy or 
tragedy, while others are never lifted above the low level of the brutal 
villain of the play. If this book shall in any measure be helpful in 
diminishing the number of sensational scenes on this stage of action, it 
will more than serve its purpose. 



CONTENTS. 



PRETENDED DEATH. 

Counterfeited Death ; Forged Certification ; False Person- 
ation AND Fictitious Substitution. — Trance or Cataleptic State — 
Simulation of Death — The First Fraud in Life Insurance — A Chicago 
Sham — Desbouis' Case — Crimination of the Examiner — The Scheurer 
Frauds — A Clumsy Philadelphia Scheme— A Colorado False Pretense — 
Healthy Substitutes for Invalids to deceive the Medical Examiner — 
Among the Molly Maguires — Personality of a Yellow Dog — A German- 
American Wife-Murderer — Substitution of Body or Padding in Coffins — 
Franz Tomatscheck — Vital Douat — The Ohio Broom-Corn Case — Trick 
that did not succeed — The Radloff Conspiracy — A Belgian Monster — A 
Hungarian Assassin — Double Impersonation — East Indian Trick — -Un- 
successful Counterfeit Presentment. 

SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

Gambling on Uninsurable Interest ; The Pennsylvania Grave- 
yard Epidemic ; The Belfast and Blackburn Scandals. — Swedish 
Gambling — A Theatrical Manager's Venture — Cases illustrative of the 
Pennsylvania Traffic in Human Life — Spread of the Epidemic to other 
States — The North Carolina Graveyard Operations — The Daring and 
Breadth of the Plots of the Belfast Imitators, and the Insufficient Pun- 
ishment of the Conspirators — The Blackburn Gamblers — A Donation 
Party and what came of it. 

MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

Inferences and Presumptions of Death ; Universal Prefer- 
ence FOR THE Drowning Trick. — A Fall River Boat Case — A Poto- 
mac River Case — The Curious Case of Sargent-Allen — A Boston Scamp 
— A Susquehanna River Case — An Ohio River Case — The Gay Deceiver, 
Boswell alias Howe — A Savannah River Case — Charles and Martha — 
Donald McLeod — A Repentant Fool — Disappearance in the Black Hills 
— Evans, the Northwood Murderer — A Lame Man lea^•es Tracks of 
Betrayal — Capture of a Shrewd Trickster — Capture of Fraker — Monoto- 
nous Repetition of the Drowning Trick, with several illustrative examples 
— The'Thrun Conspiracy ; the Burning in Place of the Drowning Trick 
— The Mariano Rubio Case — The Hillmon Concealment. 



6 CONTENTS. 

HOMICIDE. 

Poisoning and more Violent Forms of Assassination. — "Janus 
Weathercock ' ' — William Palmer — The Goss-Udderzook Tragedy — 
Angle Stewart, the Murdered Child — The Brantley-Eskridge Romance — 
The Hunter-Armstrong Tragedy — Meyer with many a/iases— The Hen- 
dryx Case — The Professor West Infamy — The Wichita Outlaws, Winner 
and McNutt — Count Pommerais and Madame Pauw — The Hartung 
Crime — Katharine Ging, the Dupe and Victim of Harry Hayward — The 
Monster Holmes — A Dramadc California Incident — East Indian Treach- 
ery — A French Wife Destroyer — An Austrian Triple Wife Murder — 
Sensational Poisoning Case in Prussia. 

FEMALE POISONERS. 

The Belgian Poisoner, Madame Joniaux — A Famous Kansas Matri- 
cide — The Execution of a Poisoner — A Family Slaughterer — Another 
Massachusetts Case — A Princeton Story — The Risk of Enhsting Con- 
nivance — A Deptford Case — The Liverpool Sisters — The Topmost on 
the List. 

SUICIDE. 

The Yorkshire Squire — A Pennsylvania Felo de Se — Colvocoresses — 
The Monroe-Snyder Case — Jacob C. WalUs — A Hungarian Nobleman's 
Stratagem — The Runk Case in Philadelphia. 

PROBLEMATICAL. 

Walton Dwight — The Ardlamont Myster>^ — The Wackerle Puzzle — 
The Maybrick Case — The Austin Disappearance — A Question of 
Identity — Mistaken Identity. 

SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 

Sixteen Illustrative Cases of this Criminal Folly. 



Stratagems and Conspiracies 

TO 

DEFRAUD LIFE INSURANCE COMPANIES. 



PRETENDED DEATH. 

COUNTERFEITED DEATH ; FORGED CERTIFICATION ; FALSE 
PERSONATION AND FICTITIOUS SUBSTITUTION. 

Stratagems and Conspiracies to defraud Life Insurance 
Companies may be grouped under certain general heads: 
Counterfeited Death; Pretence of Death under the forms of 
forged certification, false personation, and fictitious substitu- 
tion ; Speculative and " Graveyard " Insurance ; Mysterious 
Disappearances, with their inferences and presumptions; Poi- 
soning and other forms of Homicide; Deliberately Planned 
Suicide; Problematical and Disputable Appearances; Perplex- 
ing Identification; and Self-Mutilation in Accident Insurance. 
This classification comprehends only those actively aggres- 
sive forms of fraud which contemplate speedy realization of 
the atrocious end in view, and which, therefore, are broadly 
contradistinguished from less tangible sorts of imposture, such, 
for instance, as material concealment or misrepresentation in 
the answers recorded in the application. It is in the nature 
of these latter deceptions that for possible results they can 
only look remotely to the chances of the future and the natural 
course of events, while their flagrancy is s^enerally mitigated 
by individual unselfishness. But though in the armamentaria 



8 PRETENDED DEATH. 

of fraud there are no weapons which more urgently call for 
the watchful scrutiny of life-insurance executive officers, the 
scope of this volume limits us to the consideration of the 
assaults of deeper desperation and more remorseless cupidity. 

Counterfeiting death by means of the hypnotic or cataleptic 
state, whether induced by mesmeric agency, or by recourse 
to anaesthetics or somnifacients which suspend sensation and 
motion, is so extremely rare that it need not be seriously 
considered as a factor in the machinations of the assailants 
of insurance companies. Curiously enough, the most striking 
illustration of the trance condition, and indeed, so far as we 
are aware, the only case of successfully simulated death is the 
first recorded fraud in the history of life insurance. According 
to Mr. John Francis, who tells the story in his very entertain- 
ing "Annals, Anecdotes and Legends of Life Assurance," it 
occurred in the year 1730. Mr. Francis says: 

"Two persons resided in the then obscure suburbs of St. 
Giles's, one of whom was a woman of twenty, the other a 
man whose age would have allowed him to be the woman's 
father, and who was generally understood to bear that relation. 
Their position hovered on the debatable ground between 
poverty and competence, or might even be characterized by 
the modern term of shabby-genteel. They interfered with 
no one, and they encouraged no one to interfere with them. 
No specific personal description is recorded of them, beyond 
the fact that the man was tall and middle-aged, bearing a 
semi-military aspect, and that the woman, though young and 
attractive in person, was apparently haughty and frigid in her 
manner. 

" On a sudden, at night-time, the latter was taken very ill. 
The man sought the wife of his nearest neighbor for assistance, 
informing her that his daughter had been seized with sudden 
and great pain at the heart. They returned together, and 
found her in the utmost apparent agony, shrinking from the 
approach of all and dreading the slightest touch. The leech 
was sent for; but before he could arrive, she seemed insensible, 
and he only entered the room in time to see her die. The 
father appeared in deep distress, the doctor felt her pulse, 
placed his hand on her heart, shook his head as he intimated 



PRETENDED DEATH. 9 

all was over, and went his way. The searchers came, for 
those birds of ill-omen were then the ordinary haunters of the 
death-bed, and the coffin with its contents was committed to 
the ground. Almost immediately after this, the bereaved 
father claimed from the underwriters some money which was 
insured on his daughter's life, left the locality, and the story 
was forgotten. 

" Not very long after, the neighborhood of Queen Square, 
then a fashionable place, shook its head at the somewhat 
equivocal connection which existed between one of the in- 
mates of a house in that locality and a lady who resided with 
him. The gentleman wore moustaches, and though not young, 
afifected what was then known as the macaroni style. The 
lady accompanied him everywhere. The captain, for such was 
the almost indefinite title he assumed, was a visitor at Rane- 
lagh, was an habitue of the cofifee-houses, and being an appar- 
ently wealthy person, riding good horses and keeping an 
attractive mistress, he attained a certain position among the 
mauvais sujets of the day. Like many others of that period, 
he was, or seemed to be, a dabbler in the funds, was frequently 
seen at Lloyd's and in the Alley; lounged occasionally at 
Garraway's; but appeared more particularly to affect the com- 
pany of those who dealt in Life Assurances. 

" His house soon became a resort for the young and thought- 
less, being one of those pleasant places where the past and the 
future were alike lost in the present; where cards were intro- 
duced with the wine, and where, if the young bloods of the 
day lost their money, they were repaid by a glance of more 
than ordinary warmth from the goddess of the place; and to 
which, if they won, they returned with renewed zest. One 
thing was noticed, they never won from the master of the 
house, and there is no doubt a large portion of the current 
expenses was met by the money gambled away; but whether 
it were fairly or unfairly gained, is scarcely a doubtful ques- 
tion. 

" A stop was soon put to these amusements. The place was 
too remote from the former locality, the appearance of both 
characters was too much changed to be identified, or in these 
two might have been traced the strangers of that obscure 



10 PRETENDED DEATH. 

suburb where, as daughter, the woman was supposed to die, 
and, as father, the man had wept and raved over her remains. 
And a similar scene was once more to be acted. The lady 
was taken as suddenly ill as before; the same spasms at the 
heart seemed to convulse her frame, and again the man hung 
over her in apparent agony. Physicians were sent for in haste; 
one only arrived in time to see her once more imitate the 
appearance of death, while the others, satisfied that life had 
fled, took their fees, * shook solemnly their powdered wigs,' 
and departed. This mystery, for it is evident there was some 
collusion or conspiracy, is partially solved when it is said that 
many thousands were claimed and received by the gallant cap- 
tain from various underwriters, merchants, and companies with 
whom he had assured the life of the lady. 

'' But the hero of this tradition was a consummate actor; and 
though his career is unknown for a long period after this, yet it 
is highly probable that he carried out his nefarious projects 
in schemes which are difilicult to trace. There is little doubt, 
however, that the soi-disant captain of Queen Square was one 
and the same person who, as a merchant, a few years later 
appeared daily on the commercial walks of Liverpool; where, 
deep in the mysteries of corn and cotton, a constant attender 
at church^; a subscriber to local charities, and a giver of good 
dinners, he soon became much respected by those who dealt 
with him in business or visited him in social life. The hospi- 
talities of his house were gracefully dispensed by a lady who 
passed as his niece, and for a time nothing seemed to disturb 
the tenor of his way. 

"At length it became whispered in the world of commerce 
that his speculations were not so successful as usual; and a long 
series of misfortunes, as asserted by him, gave a sanction to the 
whisper. It soon became advisable for him to borrow money, 
and this he could only do on the security of property belonging 
to his niece. To do so it was necessary to insure their lives 
for about £2,000. This was easy enough, as Liverpool, no 
less than London, was ready to assure anything which promised 
profit, and as the afifair was regular, no one hesitated. A cer- 
tain amount of secrecy was requisite for the sake of his credit; 
and availing himself of this, he assured on the life of his niece 



PRETENDED DEATH. 11 

£2,000 with, at any rate, ten different merchants and under- 
writers in London and elsewhere. The game was once more 
in his own hands, and the same play was once more acted. 
The lady was taken ill, the doctor was called in and found her 
suffering from convulsions. He administered a specific, and 
retired. In the night he was again hastily summoned, but 
arrived too late. The patient was declared to be beyond his 
skill; and the next morning it became known to all Liverpool 
that she had died suddenly. A decorous grief was evinced by 
the chief mourner. There was no haste made in forwarding 
the funeral; the lady lay almost in state, so numerous were the 
friends who called to see the last of her they had visited; the 
searchers did their hideous office gently, for they were probably 
largely bribed; the physician certified that she had died of a 
complaint he could scarcely name, and the grave received the 
cofffn. The merchant retained his position in Liverpool, and 
bore himself with decent dignity; made no immediate applica- 
tion for the money, scarcely even alluded to the assurances 
which were due, and when they were named, exhibited an 
appearance of almost apathetic indifference. He had, how- 
ever, selected his victims with skill. They were safe men, and 
from them he duly received the money which was assured on 
the life of the niece. 

" From this period he seemed to dechne in health, expressed 
a loathing for the place where he had once been so happy; 
change of air was prescribed, and he left the men whom he 
had deceived, chuckling at the success of his infamous scheme. 

'' It need not be repeated that the poverty-stricken gentle- 
man of the suburbs, the gambling captain of Queen Square, 
and the merchant of Liverpool were identical. That so suc- 
cessful a series of frauds was practised appears wonderful at 
the present day; but that the woman either possessed that 
power of simulating death, of which we read occasional cases in 
the remarkable records of various times, or that the physicians 
were deceived or bribed, is certain. There is no other way of 
accounting for the success of a scheme which dipped so largely 
into the pockets of the underwriters." 



12 PRETENDED DEATH. 

A CHICAGO SHAM. 

In pursuance of a swindle concocted in Chicago by Richard 
Rainforth, Dr. C. B. Kendall, and T. W. Fuller, it was pre- 
arranged that the principal actor should feign death follow- 
ing typhoid fever, and that, previous to burial, another body 
should be smuggled into the coffin. The particulars of this 
case are as follows : 

In the month of February, 1867, a will, purporting to have 
been made and signed by Richard Rainforth, deceased, was 
filed in the Cook County Court, Chicago, for probate. The 
will was duly executed and witnessed, and contained three sepa- 
rate bequests — one for $1,000 to Dr. Charles B. Kendall, 
FuUerton Block; one of $1,000 to Timothy W. Fuller, 133 S. 
Clark Street, and the rest of Rainforth's property to Birdie, the 
daughter of T. W. Fuller. The will provided for its own exe- 
cution, and named Kendall and Fuller, the legatees, as execu- 
tors. The will was on file till March 21, no measures having 
been taken to prove it until that date, when a rule of Court was 
obtained to compel the executors to do so. When the demise 
of Rainforth was made public. Miles Rainforth, his brother, 
went to Chicago to see how matters stood in his favor in the 
will. > After having obtained an interview with M. F. Heenan, 
the lawyer who had been employed to draw up the will, he was 
led to believe the will was a forgery, or that deceased had been 
dealt with foully. Impressed with this doubt, he arranged with 
a legal firm to investigate the subject. Efforts were then made 
to have the will proved, but failed until a rule of Court was 
had " compelling the executors to show cause why they did not 
prove the will." On the 21st of March, Fuller and Kendall 
appeared in court to answer the summons issued, and, in the 
absence of Mr. Heenan, renounced the executorship. Miles 
Rainforth then filed a petition, asking for an examination into 
the merits of the will. The petition was granted, and the 
executors placed in the witness-box to " answer relative to their 
stewardship of the property of the deceased, and the manner of 
his death." Dr. Kendall was first examined, and refused to 
answer, when he was committed for contempt. Fuller was then 
placed on the stand, and, to the question ** Is Richard Rainforth 
dead?" replied, "No, he is not dead; he still lives." He then 



PRETENDED DEATH. 13 

testified that Rainforth, Kendall, and himself had matured a 
plan to defraud the ^tna, St. Louis Mutual, and Mutual Benefit 
Life Insurance Companies, in which he had effected poUcies 
for $15,000. The plan consisted in Rainforth assuming death, 
while Kendall was deputed to procure a body for the inter- 
ment, and after the skilful substitution of the body, Rainforth 
was to seek some place of concealment. In pursuance of this 
arrangement, a few days before Rainforth's alleged death, he 
pretended to feel unwell, and Dr. Kendall was called in and 
pronounced the patient suffering from typhoid fever. Two 
days afterwards, by direction of the patient, his will was drawn 
up, and another physician called on to visit the sick man; he 
decided that he had only about thirty-six hours to live. The 
same day a barber was procured who shaved off Rainforth's 
moustache and whiskers. An hour afterwards his will was 
signed "in the presence of Heenan and two other witnesses." 
While Fuller and Kendall were in the room the latter said, 
"Poor Dick is dead." On the following day the pretended 
corpse was apparently and presumably coffined and buried in 
Graceland Cemetery, Chicago. Fuller moreover stated that 
he was not aware of the fraud practised upon him by this pre- 
tence of death until some time after its occurrence. He after- 
ward learned that letters had been received at Chicago from 
Rainforth and Fuller's daughter, Birdie, dated as late as March 
18. Fuller was then held for a further hearing in $12,000 bail, 
and Dr. Kendall was arraigned for fraud and held in jail to 
answer. Search was made for Rainforth after the plot had 
been discovered; but no clew to his whereabouts was obtained 
until some time in April, when it was ascertained that he was in 
New York. On the receipt of a telegram to that effect by 
Superintendent Kennedy, from the detective agency of Wm. 
Tuttle & Co., Chicago, detectives Vaughan and Niven were 
detailed to find Rainforth. They worked assiduously, and, 
after a deal of difficulty, they learned that he was at the Dupont 
House, corner of Hudson and Laight Streets. They proceeded 
to the place at two o'clock at night, and there he was discov- 
ered in bed. He was taken to Police Headquarters and deliv- 
ered to the custody of Detective Kennedy, of Chicago, who 
had been sent to New York to convey the accused to that city. 



14 PRETENDED DEATH. 

Rainforth had been a quartermaster in the army, Dr. Kendall 
an army surgeon, and Mr. Fuller a detective in the service 
of the government during the war. Fuller, after his exposure 
of the Rainforth conspiracy, furnished the Chicago Tribune 
with an autobiographical sketch of his life and adventures, in 
the course of which he made a revelation, which, however 
startling or sensational, savored so much more of the fanciful 
than of the probable, that it did not produce a very profound 
impression. He said: 

The origin of this insurance business is not here. There are par- 
ties connected with it who stand high in society, and who have great 
influence. It would not benefit me to say who these parties are, nor 
would it now benefit the insurance companies, and the public will 
not be injured by having the names kept a secret for the present. 
// is e7iough to say it is a7i organized company, with its headquarters 
in New York. It has its ramifications throughout the principal 
States, and the persons engaged are in such positions that if at- 
tempted, the frauds will be seldom discovered, because the doctor 
and the man who is reported to die have no knowledge outside of the 
patient or case in which they are engaged. 

Whatever the object of this singular statement, it was deemed 
prudent, in view of possibilities, to give it some consideration, 
for if, upon investigation, there should be found a shadow 
of truth in so remarkable a declaration, the life companies 
were bound to assume a defensive attitude. But whether true 
or not, the experience of the English companies, and the num- 
erous cases of convicted crime in this country, sufficiently 
prove to our life corporations that they have an ugly foe to 
encounter, and that it is necessary to be unceasingly vigilant 



FORGED CERTIFICATION. 

With regard to forged proofs of death, without auxiliaries in 
reserve, it will be found that though at first glance such fabri- 
cation would seem to open an inviting field for knavery, it is 
comparatively rare, because comparatively easy of detection. 
Take, by way of illustration, a recent case of false certification 
in France. A young teacher named Charles Auguste Des- 



PRETENDED DEATH. 15 

bouis, in Nevers, was the beneficiary of policies on the hfe of 
his mother, a widow Hving in Tonnay, in the company named 
Le Monde, to the amount of 50,000 francs. Toward the end 
of January, M. Desbouis notified the agent of Le Monde in 
Nevers that his mother was dead. The agent forthwith com- 
municated the information to the company, and shortly after- 
ward the officers received a letter from the family announcing 
the fact; also, the Mayor's official certificate of the death of 
the Widow Desbouis ; and the usual certificates of the! physician 
and the undertaker. As these certificates were upon ordinary 
paper, the company thought they had a suspicious look, and 
called upon M. Desbouis to furnish certificates upon stamped 
paper. This he did a few days afterward. A comparison be- 
tween the new certificates and those previously furnished 
strengthened the suspicions of the company. Notwithstanding 
a favorable report from the agent in Nevers, they sent one of 
their inspectors to Charente, in western France, to institute an 
investigation, the result of which was the discovery that the 
Widow Desbouis was in good health, and blissfully ignorant of 
her son's fraudulent manoeuvres. The next time the young 
man called at the honle office, in Paris, he was arrested. 

CRIMINATION OF THE EXAMINER. 

The occasional collusion of medical examiners with men of 
loose morals and lack of principle, who engage in schemes 
to rob insurance companies, leaves a dark shadow upon one 
of the noblest of all professions, a vocation and a mission 
as noteworthy for the honor and integrity of its membership 
as it is for humane and charitable and philanthropic work. 
When a physician accepts a bribe to give a false certificate 
of acceptability for insurance, the question arises whether his 
act is an outgrowth of depravity or of poverty, whether it 
springs from moral obliquity or the res angusfa domi. To 
show how hard it is, from a distant view-point, to reach a 
correct conclusion, take a recent case. 

In September, 1895, Drs. Bingham and Ferguson, and 
Crown Attorney Farwell, of Whitby, Ontario, under instruc- 
tions from the Attorney-General's Department, exhumed the 
body of Mary Ellen Alger, wife of Elisha Alger, a farmer near 



16 PRETENDED DEATH. 

Pickering, who died in August. This procedure was in conse- 
quence of information which led to suspicion that a conspiracy 
had been formed to defraud the Equitable Life and the Home 
Life Insurance Company of New York. The former had issued 
a policy on the woman's life in December, 1894, for $7,000, 
and the latter in July, 1895, within a month of her death, for 
$5,000, on the recommendation of Dr. Francey, of Whitevale, 
Ontario. Mrs. Alger had been married fifteen years, and the 
post-mortem examination showed that she died of pulmonary 
consumption. On the 17th of November, Alger was com- 
mitted for trial on the charge of attempting to defraud the 
Equitable Life. The F7'ee Press, of London, Ontario, pub- 
lished the following account of the testimony of Dr. Francey, 
the criminated medical examiner: 

"The examination of Dr. Francey was one of the most extra- 
ordinary in the history of criminology. He told without any reserve 
whatever how he had gradually been led into this business. Henry 
Trull, Oshawa, local agent for the Equitable Life, came to see him 
in September, 1894, and wanted him to take him around canvassing 
for risks, offering 25 per cent, commission on first premium. ' We 
went to Alger's. He was digging post holes around his barnyard. 
Trull talked life insurance. Alger was disposed to discuss the ques- 
tion, but at another time when he should have leisure. He came to 
me afterwards and spoke of the subject, wanting to place insurance 
on his wife. At first I said it would hardly do. I asked him why 
he had not got insurance on both himself and wife in the Mutual 
Reserve. Alger said it was too late now to talk about that. He did 
not know that his wife was likely to die. In April, 1894, I had made 
a careful examination of her. I was attending his daughter Nellie 
at the time. I made a naked chest examination of Mrs. Alger. I told 
him his wife had consumption and was almost certain to die before 
many years. He had talked to some people about the Mutual Reserve, 
he said, but they had not spoken well of that company. I said to him, 
if he should insure her, it would likely be a profitable policy, as she 
was unlikely to live long. Alger said I was to get $1,000 of the insur- 
ance if I'd pass her, and I could make what I could out of the pre- 
miums. It was finally decided to insure her for $5,000 in the Equitable 
Life. It was explained by me that the insurance would be certain if she 
lived out the year, as the policies of that company are incontestable.' 
In making the examination the questions as to family history were 
skipped by Francey, and she was led to believe the application was 
but for $1,000. Francey examined her for the Home Life, but she 
knew nothing about it, Francey going to Toronto and copying the 
Equitable policy application. Mrs. Alger's name was forged to this 



PRETENDED DEATH. 17 

one. The name of the forger has not yet been given. James Hortop 
was named by Francey as being offered $150 with himself if the 
insurance money on the last policy was obtained. Francey insists 
that he came back from Buffalo of his own accord, and has since 
been promised his liberty if he gave evidence in this trial. He swears 
he wished to get Alger to settle." 

Other parties implicated were afterward indicted. But the 
disquieting and deplorable feature of the case was the faith- 
lessness of a trusted medical examiner, and his willingness, 
whether from need or from greed, to involve the companies 
which employed him in the large expenditure of time, trouble 
and money, which necessarily attends such contests for justice 
and right. 

THE SCHEURER FRAUDS. 

In the spring of 1888 Henri Castelnau, a doctor of shady 
reputation, Alexander Martinet, a chemist, and Marie Prouteau, 
Castelnau's servant, were placed on trial at Versailles, on a 
charge of concocting a false certificate of death. Another 
woman, Juliana Metz, was included in the indictment as a 
particeps criminis, but her case was separately disposed of at 
Vienna. The facts, as detailed by a leading English insurance 
journal, The Review, are substantially as follows: 

A German adventurer named Scheurer married an American 
wife at Brooklyn, but not finding her rich, as he had expected, 
deserted her. He came to Paris in 1883 with his mistress, 
Juliana Metz, and, being reduced to great shifts, conceived the 
idea of insuring his life in English offices and of pretending 
to be dead, so that Juliana might receive the insurance. He 
had formerly been an agent for insurance companies and was 
well acquainted with their working. He accordingly effected 
insurances for £8,500, and some months afterwards a certificate 
of death at Meudon being sent in, the companies, after some 
demur, paid the policies. 

Marie Prouteau, however, after a time, gossiped to the serv- 
ant who had succeeded her at Castelnau's, the latter repeated 
the story, and an anonymous letter reached the companies. It 
was then discovered that Scheurer was still living, that the 
man who had died was really named Carl Glockner, that 
Castelnau, a doctor and Anarchist orator at Paris, was a party 



18 PRETENDED DEATH. 

to the fraud, and that the chemist Martinet had received 23,- 
000 francs for having secured the consumptive patient Glock- 
ner, a journeyman brewer, who was to be passed ofif at death 
as Scheurer. The last-named meanwhile had naturalized him- 
self in Canada, had taken the name of Clarence Percy Robert, 
had bigamously married Juliana at Brighton, and had gone 
with her to Austria. On hearing that the fraud had been 
detected, Scheurer went to Italy, but, learning that Juliana 
had been arrested with £8,000 in her possession, he committed 
suicide at Como. He left a paper avowing his guilt and exon- 
erating Juliana. 

Castelnau, on being interrogated, acknowledged that he made 
Scheurer's acquaintance in 1878, that he himself was then in 
pecuniary straits, and that he agreed to assist in Scheurer's 
plan. He was promised 100,000 francs, but received only 
23,300 francs. He went and asked Martinet to find him a sick 
man. Glockner was not only a German, but had some resem- 
blance to Scheurer. Glockner was taken to a house at Meudon, 
and Castelnau maintained that he was well cared for. No doc- 
tor, however, saw him till a few days before his death, when the 
medical man called in found him in the last stage of consump- 
tion. Castelnau received the money through Martinet, and he 
gave 10,000 francs of it to his daughter. He admitted having 
at Scheurer's dictation drawn up the certificate of death. 

Martinet, while obliged to admit that he had provided the 
invalid Glockner for Castelnau, insisted that he had known 
nothing of the fraud, but believed that Castelnau wished to 
test a new cure for consumption. Marie Prouteau also main- 
tained that she did not at the time know of the fraud, and did 
not know who the patient at Meudon was, though Scheurer 
afterwards induced her to make a declaration that the patient 
was Baron Scheurer. 

On the conclusion of the trial, Marie Prouteau, the servant, 
who, after signing documents certifying Scheurer's death, ulti- 
mately made disclosures which led to the detection of the 
fraud, was acquitted. The jury found the two other prisoners 
guilty, but with extenuating circumstances. Castelnau was 
sentenced to eight years, and the chemist, Martinet, to five 
years' imprisonment. 



PRETENDED DEATH. 19 

The trial of Juliana Metz, the accomplice of Scheurer, who 
swindled seven British insurance companies, took place in 
Vienna. The accused, Scheurer's mistress, was born in Galicia 
and at the time was thirty years of age. She was accused of 
having, in concert with several accomplices, between December, 
1883, and June, 1884, obtained large sums under false pre- 
tences in London and Paris, from various life associations. 
Among the companies defrauded are the Provident Clerks' 
Mutual Life Association, the Imperial Life Assurance Com- 
pany, the Sun Life Assurance, the Union, and the Scottish 
Widows' Fund. It was pretended that Scheurer died at Meu- 
don in November, 1883, whereupon Juliana Metz, to whom 
all Scheurer's insurance documents had been given, obtained 
£13,800. The accused, until nineteen, could neither read nor 
write, and at the age of twenty-two was in domestic service as 
a nursemaid. Yet when she lived in Austria she assumed the 
airs of a lady of social distinction, keeping a carriage and a 
train of servants, and was treated with great respect. Her 
marriage with Scheurer, which w^as contracted in England, was 
bigamous because the American wife, whom he deserted after 
squandering her money, was still living. In the indictment 
it was asserted that the man who died of consumption under 
Scheurer's name was aware of the fraud. Juliana lived in Eng- 
land, and fearing to betray the secret by letter, often crossed 
the Channel to consult with Scheurer when difficulties arose 
from the insurance companies suspecting foul play. She was 
an accomplished actress, and passed herself of¥ as Scheurer's 
af^icted widow everywhere, even in his family in Hamburg, 
and in consequence of her part being played so well she 
obtained the money. Her appearance gave no clue to her 
talents. She was small and apparently timid, and seemed like 
a lady's maid. When Scheurer heard of the arrest of Castelnau 
and Martinet in Paris he withdrew his money from the banks 
where it was deposited, and gave some to Juliana and some 
to friends to keep for her. Then they both left Vienna in 
different directions. Before shooting himself in Como he sent 
all he had with him to Vienna, where a total of £9,000 was 
secured after Juliana's arrest, so that the losses were, to some 
extent, repaired. During the examination she put all the 



20 PRETENDED DEATH. 

blame upon Scheurer, and pretended to be too simple to know 
she was committing a fraud when she did all in her power to 
obtain the insurance. Although the advocate for the defense 
urged that his client acted under the influence of pressure, 
the jury found the prisoner guilty, and sentenced her to four 
years' hard labor. 

A CLUMSY PHILADELPHIA SCHEME. 

One of the clumsiest and stupidest attempts ever made to 
defraud a beneficial order came to light in Philadelphia in 
December, 1889. A Dr. Alurray undertook to swindle the 
Order of Fraternal Guardians out of $625, the amount of 
insurance on the life of Miss Annie Alclntosh, aged 22. 
Though the girl was alive and well, he caused to be published 
in the daily papers a notice of her death at the house of a Mrs. 
Behm, and the statement that the interment would be at Media. 
The attention of the coroner was called by sceptical parties 
to the matter, and the facts were gradually developed in the 
course of an official examination. 

Dr. Murray, when called to testify, stated that he had been 
called upon to attend the patient, who was formerly in his 
employ as a servant, and that on the 22d of November a man 
alleging to be Robert Mcintosh, the brother of the deceased, 
called upon him for a death certificate, which he gave him. 
The doctor said that he wrote it on a prescription blank, giving 
the cause of death as " peritonitis." He also claimed that the 
brother was accompanied by a man who was connected with 
Quinby's undertaking establishment at Media. He admit- 
ted that he had not seen the body of the deceased, but had 
issued the certificate solely upon the information of the brother 
that she was dead. An efifort was then made to ascertain what 
disposition had been made of the body, the services of all the 
attaches of the coroner's office being called into requisition, 
but nothing could be learned on that point. Feeling con- 
vinced that a crime of some kind had been committed, the 
coroner placed Mrs. Behm under arrest. After a night in 
prison, she acknowledged that her previous story was untrue. 
When the hearing was resumed, Murray was again called to 
the stand. He detailed circumstantially the facts about Annie's 



PRETENDED DEATH. 21 

illness, and told of the issuing of a certificate by him on learn- 
ing from her brother that she had died. Then Mrs. Behm 
was placed on the stand, and, in answer to questions, she said 
that Annie Mcintosh had not died at her house, and that she 
never knew such a person. Dr. Murray, she testified, had 
promised to reward her handsomely for allowing her house 
and name to be used. Murray then bro'ke down, and con- 
fessed that he had manufactured the story of the girl's death in 
order to defraud the Order of Fraternal Guardians out of $625, 
the amount for which her life was insured. He said that Annie 
Mcintosh was alive and well at her home, in the northern sec- 
tion of the city. The doctor's discomfiture was complete, and 
after a scathing rebuke from the coroner, the case was turned 
over to the district attorney. 

A COLORADO FALSE PRETENCE. 

In May, 1889, two crooks, mother and son, of Pueblo, 
Colorado, devised a scheme to defraud the Washington Life 
Insurance Company of New York out of fifteen thousand 
dollars. A policy for that amount was issued at Denver by 
F. E. Busby, manager of the company, to one Daniel Stevens, 
who claimed to be a resident of Sheridan Lake, a small town 
in Bent County, near the Kansas line, the policy being made 
payable to his mother, Mary E. Stevens. 

Nothing more was thought of the matter by Mr. Busby 
until more than a month afterward, when he received a letter 
from the bereaved mother, postmarked at Pueblo, Colorado, 
notifying him that her son Daniel had suddenly departed this 
life, and requesting him, between her sobs, to send her the 
proper blank proofs of death, so that she could collect the 
amount for which his life was insured. 

The tone of the letter, and the fact that the insured had died 
so soon after getting the policy, excited Mr. Busby's suspi- 
cions, and he concluded to inquire into the matter. In her 
letter the mother stated that her son had died at Sheridan Lake 
of pneumonia, having been taken sick on the 26th of March, 
and died on the 2d of April, the death occurring about five 
weeks after the policy was issued. She also stated that she 
was then at Greenhorn, in Pueblo County, attending a sick 
friend, who was very low. 



22 PRETENDED DEATH. 

Mr. Busby promptly forwarded the blanks to Mrs. Stevens, 
and then proceeded to investigate the particulars of the son's 
death on his own account. Inquiry developed the fact that 
no such man as Daniel Stevens had lived, died, or been buried 
at Sheridan Lake, that no one had died or been buried there 
within a year, and that no one in that locality could be found 
who had ever heard of such a man as Daniel Stevens. Con- 
vinced by this discovery that Daniel was a deceiver and still 
living, Mr. Busby put the matter into the hands of his attorney, 
F. A. Williams, of Denver, and Sheriff McCarthy, of Pueblo, 
and after a consultation with them, immediately determined 
upon a course of action. 

The proofs of death not having been yet received, Mr. Busby 
wrote to Mrs. Stevens at Pueblo in regard to the matter, and 
she at once replied, forwarding the proofs, and stating that she 
herself had been quite sick at Greenhorn, which accounted 
for the seeming delay in forwarding the proofs. The prompt- 
ness with which this decoy letter was answered proved that 
Mrs. Stevens was at Pueblo and not at Greenhorn, and Sheriff 
McCarthy and Under-sheriff Abbey then began the work of 
locating Mrs. Stevens and Daniel, feeling assured that the latter 
was still living, and that both were in Pueblo. 

Mr. Busby learned that Daniel Stevens had rented a box at 
the Pueblo post office about March 20, paying for it in ad- 
vance, and instructing the postmaster to put all mail-matter 
coming to his address in said box, implying that he would 
get the mail when he came to town. Sheriff McCarthy and 
Under-sheriff Abbey then began to watch for Mrs. Stevens, 
or any one else that might call for the mail put into Daniel 
Stevens' box, and they soon noticed that a young man answer- 
ing the description of Daniel called for the mail. It was also 
discovered that he was rooming in a building on West Seventh 
Street, formerly occupied by D. C. Montgomery. On further 
investigation the bereaved mother, Mrs. Mary E. Stevens, was 
found at Mrs. Lane's, on South Santa Fe Avenue, where she 
had a room and was frequently visited by the young man sup- 
posed to be her son, but who answered to the name of John 
Morgan in Pueblo. 

On learning these facts, though no one was able to identify 



PRETENDED DEATH. 23 

the insured, Mr. Busby decided to remain in Pueblo until the 
guilty parties were brought to justice. He was accompanied 
by his attorney, Mr. Williams, and Mr. E. D. Hegg, of Thiel's 
Detective Agency, Denver. In the mean time a registered 
letter had been sent to the address of Mrs. Stevens, and the 
usual notification was dropped in Daniel Stevens' box. The 
man supposed to be Stevens went to the post-office about 9 
o'clock in the morning to see if there was any mail, and Mr. 
Busby, who was stationed in a convenient locality, saw the 
man and at once recognized him as the assured. One of 
Sheriff McCarthy's force had shadowed him to the office, and 
when he came out he was followed by another shadow. Mr. 
Hegg was following him, and from that time until his arrest 
he was not lost sight of for one minute, except when he was 
in his own room, or that of his mother, and even then he was 
not out of sight of the officers. 

Leaving the post office, young Stevens went to his room, 
and later went to his mother's room on South Santa Fe 
Avenue. Later they both went to the post office, and Mrs. 
Stevens secured the registered letter, which informed her that 
the insurance money was in the Stockgrowers' National Bank, 
where she could get it upon giving a proper receipt. They 
then returned to her room and determined upon a plan of 
action. 

About 2 o'clock they walked up town together on the other 
side of the street from the Stockgrowers' Bank. When oppo- 
site the bank young Stevens crossed over, and went inside and 
inquired if there was some money there to the credit of Mrs. 
Mary E. Stevens in payment of a life insurance, and was told 
that there was. He then stated that she was in town, and 
would be in before the close of banking hours to get the money 
and receipt for same. 

It might be well to state here that Mrs. Stevens had pre- 
viously, about a week before, deposited $100 in the Stock- 
growers' Bank, taking a certificate of deposit, and leaving her 
signature for the purpose, and with the intention, no doubt, 
of preventing any trouble about identification when she came 
to draw the insurance money, which she evidently thought 
would be sent to her throug-h some bank. 



24 PRETENDED DEATH. 

When Daniel Stevens went into the bank to ask about the 
money, Sheriff McCarthy and Mr. Busby were sitting in the 
front office, where they could watch all proceedings and hear 
all that was said. They had been there since 9 o'clock, waiting 
for the game to walk into the net, confident that they would 
bag them before the day was over. 

When Stevens went out of the bank he followed his mother 
up the street. She went up Santa Fe Avenue as far as Paul 
Wilson's dry goods store and stepped inside. The young man 
walked up the street a block or more, eying everybody he 
met warily, evidently on the lookout for officers. He then 
walked back to Mr. Wilson's store, got his mother, and 
started for the bank. Just ahead of them was Under-sheriff 
Abbey, who did not look as though he could tell a saint from 
a sinner, whilst just behind them walked Mr. Hegg, the 
Denver detective; across the street was Deputy Sheriff Barnes, 
and half a block down stood Lawyer Williams, evidently tak- 
ing in Andrews & Denman's show of carpets and furniture. 
The conspirators were surrounded, and could not have got 
away had they desired. 

Mrs. Stevens and her son walked into the Stockgrowers' 
Bank as unconcerned as though they were going to a meal. 
Mrs. Stevens was clad in the deepest mourning, and the man 
whose death she was apparently grieving over walked beside 
her with his head erect, carrying in his hand an empty satchel, 
which was evidently intended to receive the long-expected 
$15,000. 

When they entered the bank Mrs. Stevens drew her deposit 
check for $100 from her pocket, and after endorsing it, gave 
it to the cashier, who handed her the money, and she in turn 
gave the money to her son. She then inquired regarding the 
insurance money, and President George H. Hobson asked her 
to step into his private office. He then told her that she must 
receipt the original policy in full before she could get the 
money. She expressed her willingness to do so, produced the 
policy, was given a pen, which she took with a firm hand, and 
receipted the policy in full, which she handed to Mr. Hobson, 
who then stepped into the bank, apparently to get the money 
for her, which the young man stood ready to lug off. 



PRETENDED DEATH. 25 

Sheriff McCarthy and Mr. Busby had watched the whole 
proceeding from their position in the front ofifice, and at this 
point stepped forward and passed quickly into the rear office, 
McCarthy presenting his pistol as he entered, remarking to 
Daniel Stevens: "I am the sheriff of Pueblo County, and I 
arrest you on a charge of conspiracy," at the same time slip- 
ping a pair of handcuffs on the prisoner's wrists. Stevens 
offered no resistance, and sank down into a chair. Mrs. 
Stevens arose as if to leave, but the sheriff remarked, " Sit 
down, Madam; I want you also," and she sat down. In the 
mean time Under-sheriff Abbey, Detective Hegg, Deputy 
Sheriff Barnes, Mr. Williams and a newspaper reporter had 
arrived on the scene, and any attempt on the part of the con- 
spirators to resist or escape would have resulted very seriously. 

A carriage was promptly called, and the prisoners were taken 
to the county jail, where they were confined on a charge of 
conspiracy and forgery, with a prospect of a long term in the 
penitentiary at Cafibn City. The young man was then asked 
his name, and replied that it was Brooks, but his mother cor- 
rected him promptly, and said it was Stevens. Later, 
however, she made a partial confession to Sheriff McCarthy 
and Mr. Busby, and begged the latter piteously to let her son 
escape, even going so far as to offer him the $ioo she had 
drawn from the bank if he would do so. She also confessed 
that their real names were Herbert Brooks and Mrs. Sarah A. 
Brooks, formerly of Silver Cliff, Colorado, and that she is 
Herbert's own mother. Parties in Pueblo who knew them 
said that they formerly moved in good society at the Cliff, 
and were well thought of there. Mrs. Brooks was then a 
woman about 45 years of age, and apparently of some educa- 
tion and refinement. Young Brooks was about 25, and was 
a fine-looking fellow. 

Mrs. Brooks claimed that she was led into this trouble by 
other parties, but she would not say who they were. There is 
no doubt that she and her son made out all the proofs of 
death, though they were seemingly sworn to before J. W. 
Kriger, a notary public at Lamar, all the documents bearing the 
imprint of his seal. A physician named Lewis was made to 
testify that he attended Daniel Stevens, alias John Morgan, 



26 PRETENDED DEATH. 

alias Herbert Brooks, in his sickness; the coroner testified to 
his death, the undertaker to his burial, and various friends to 
the fact that they knew him when alive and saw him dead, 
and Mr. Kriger, who is a well-known lawyer at Lamar, 
apparently took the acknowledgments of all these people, but 
his signature on file in the Secretary of State's office proved 
conclusively that all the documents were forgeries. Hence 
the conclusion that Mr. Kriger's seal was stolen for the occa- 
sion. 

FALSE PERSONATION OF APPLICANT. 

False impersonation in making application for insurance, 
and in undergoing the requisite medical examination, is a 
dangerous form of fraud. Here, both agent and examiner 
may be innocent victims of deception; on the other hand, 
both may be in rascally collusion with other parties to defraud 
the agent's company; or, again, the agent may conspire with 
others to deceive the examiner. Mr. Francis, in his " Annals," 
gives an account of the earliest known instance of such decep- 
tion. Application was made in the year 1780, to a London 
office, to insure the life of a lady for £2,000. Her health was 
sound, constitution excellent, references satisfactory, and the 
policy was issued. Within six months a claim was made for 
the money. In the proofs of loss, which were found to be 
regular, the disease was certified to be pulmonary consump- 
tion. Thereupon, directors looked grave and questioned the 
secretary, and the secretary looked rueful and questioned the 
doctor. There was no accounting for such a termination of 
the risk; it seemed en regie; no fraud could be alleged, and 
the policy was paid. Information subsequently given to the 
office, however, led to inquiry, and it was ascertained that one 
sister being an incurable invalid, the other personated her at 
the assurance office, deceived the medical examiner, sent in the 
certificate of her sister's death, and obtained the money. 
Thereafter she disappeared, and no thought of restitution was 
entertained. 

To lessen the risk of this vicarious portraiture, this imper- 
sonation mutato nomine, the companies lay more stress than 
formerly upon means of comparison and identification, exacti- 



PRETENDED DEATH. 27 

tude in height, weight, chest measure, complexion, color of 
eyes and hair, and personal peculiarities. Moreover, they em- 
ploy the checks and guards of systematic inspection, and the 
machinery of detective agencies. Even when these instrumen- 
talities are at fault, the gamesters frequently defeat themselves 
in one way or another. In a case reported from Montreal, 
for example, certain creditors of a consumptive, named La 
Ferriere, were anxious to reimburse themselves in advance of 
his prospective death. A healthy substitute was provided for 
examination, and policies were issued by three life companies 
to the amount of $20,000. These policies were assigned to 
the creditors. Within a month after the payment of the first 
premium the invalid died, a little too hurriedly for the success 
of the game of the conspirators. The proofs of loss revealed 
the nature of the fraud, and the companies concerned naturally 
and properly refused to be victimized. On the other hand, 
in a case reported from Boston, in April, 1891, the rascals 
succeeded in swindling the New York Life out of $2,000. 
The particulars as published showed that the policy had been 
issued two years before to a citizen of Boston, and at his 
death the money was paid to his widow. It was discovered 
that the man himself did not make application for the policy, 
being a consumptive, and that another, named John J. King, 
personated him at the medical examination and other pre- 
liminaries to the issuance of the policy. King, it is alleged, 
acted throughout in conspiracy with the wife of the consump- 
tive, and received half of the amount of the policy from her. 
When the fraud was discovered, a warrant was issued for the 
arrest of King, who was traced to the house of his brother 
in Brooklyn, where he was captured. 

AMONG THE MOLLY MAGUIRES. 

The case of Catherine White against the United Brethren 
Mutual Aid Society, tried before Judge Handley, in Scranton, 
Pa., in 1879, brought out the facts in an attempt to falsely 
personate an applicant. In 1878, Patrick Waldron, of Scran- 
ton, was the agent in that city for the U. B. Mutual Aid. On 
the 1 6th of August, 1878, he forwarded an application for a 
$3,000 membership on one Mary White, of Scranton, in favor 



28 PRETENDED DEATH. 

of her sister Catherine White. Dr. Horace Ladd was the 
examining physician for the Society at Scranton, and his cer- 
tificate showed the apphcant to be a woman in excellent health 
and a first-class risk. The Society issued its certificate of 
membership on the application for benefit to the amount of 
$3,000 in favor of Catherine White, sister of Mary White, and 
late in November notice was received that ^lary White had 
died on the 226. of November, 1878, of pneumonia. About 
the same time a letter was received from Andrew White, the 
husband of Mary White, giving warning that the transaction 
was fraudulent, that neither he nor his wife had known any- 
thing about it, that his wife was taken sick in April, 1878, had 
severe hemorrhages of the lungs in June, 1878, and died of 
consumption. The Society investigated the case, found the 
facts exactly as stated by Andrew White, and thereupon refused 
to pay the claim, and dismissed the agent. 

Catherine White brought suit to recover the $3,000. At 
the trial Dr. Horace Ladd swore that he did not know Mary 
White nor her sister, Catherine White, personally; that the 
woman whom he examined as ]\Iar}' White was at the time, 
August 15, 1878, a stout, healthy, robust woman, weighing 
not less than 146 pounds, and that when asked to sign the 
application, she stated that she could not write her name, but 
made her mark. Dr. Connell swore that as early as June, 1878, 
he was called to attend Mary Wliite professionally; that she 
during that month had frequent hemorrhages of the lungs, 
that he visited her at least eight different times prior to August, 
1878, that she was very much emaciated and would not have 
weighed over one hundred pounds, and that he prescribed the 
remedies usually administered in pulmonary consumption. 
Andrew White swore that his wife, Mary White, was taken ill 
in April, 1878; that in June, 1878, she became dangerously 
ill, had hemorrhages of the lungs and a severe cough, that they 
called in Dr. Connell, that she was then already ver}^ much 
reduced in flesh and would not have weighed over one hundred 
pounds, that his wife could readily write her name and never 
signed by making her mark, and that neither he nor his wife 
knew anything of the insurance on her life. Three of the 
neighbors swore that in June, 1878, they were several times 



PRETENDED DEATH. 2^ 

called in to Mr. White's house on account of her bleeding at 
the lungs, that they hourly expected her death, and that she 
was so reduced that she would not have weighed over one 
hundred pounds. 

For the prosecution Patrick Waldron, said to be a Molly 
Maguire, swore that the Mary White who died, wife of An- 
drew White, was the identical woman whom he took to Dr. 
Ladd's office and had examined. A police officer of Scranton, 
said to be a Molly Maguire, swore that he saw Patrick Wal- 
dron and Mary White, the identical woman who died, go into 
Dr. Ladd's office that day and that he talked with them on 
their way. Another Irishman, said also to be a Molly Maguire, 
swore to the same thing. Dr. Hagerty (a Molly Maguire), 
the attending physician, swore that Mary White died of pneu-, 
monia, and not of consumption. After this exhibition of 
Molly Maguireism there was no resource except to carry the 
case to a higher court beyond the baneful infection of an 
atmosphere of perjury. 

THE PERSONALITY OF A YELLOW DOG. 

About the time that the Belfast conspirators were palming 
off on the English managers of an American life insurance 
company an uninsurable negro for an insurable Irishman, as 
narrated elsewhere in this volume, a gang of gamesters in 
South Carolina had a yellow dog insured under the name " Jim 
Brown," presumably a gentleman of the colored persuasion. 

The gang implicated in this comedy, as well as in other 
fraudulent transactions, numbered nineteen persons, black and 
white. For a considerable period, their operations, crudely 
conducted as they were, resulted successfully, the total sums 
out of which the companies had been swindled amounting to 
over $100,000. The leading sinners were a family of whites 
named Bond. Their plan was to insure the life of a fictitious 
person, then to hire lodging rooms, place an alleged wife in 
possession, and announce to the neighborhood that her hus- 
band was dying. The announcement was followed by the 
news of his death. Bodies were smuggled from the Potter's 
Field, secretly conveyed into the premises, and in due time 
buried in the cemeteries. Then the insurance monev would be 



30 PRETENDED DEATH. 

collected. One of the Bonds was a physician, another was an 
agent of the insurance companies, and the third acted as buyer 
of the corpses. The. conspiracy was finally unearthed by Pink- 
erton detectives sent to the scene of action by the Travelers 
Insurance Company of Hartford and the United States Mutual 
Accident Company of New York. Many of the rascals fled 
from the State and escaped. The case which led to discovery 
was that of a colored person named Joseph B. Dudley, who 
was insured in two accident companies in the sum of five 
thousand dollars each. In the process of investigation a con- 
fession was obtained from trustworthy parties that no such 
person as Dudley ever lived, and that the corpse alleged to be 
that of the fictitious Dudley was obtained in a graveyard for 
.colored people. 

Among the discoveries made by the detectives was that con- 
cerning " Jim Brown." This party on whose life the amount 
of a policy held by the Bonds and their agents, prominently 
the colored woman, Mary Dudley, was paid at maturity, turns 
out to have been a yellow dog. It was learned that one and 
the same negro corpse was, with noteworthy economy, utilized 
five times in making up proofs of loss in as many different 
cases of alleged death. 

If any one, up to this period, thought that the limit of 
diabolical ingenuity had been reached, he must have been 
surprised to learn from the Bonds that the harp-strings were 
capable of being attuned to new melodies. They showed that 
even the element of facetiousness may be successfully intro- 
duced in the game. They demonstrated that for practical 
purposes a yellow dog may personate a man, that he may be 
insured as a man, that his human owners may have an insur- 
able interest in his life, and that when the dog dies, as die he 
must and will under such circumstances, the beneficiaries may 
present a valid claim which the insurance companies will duly 
recognize and pay. All of which is, in one sense, extremely 
funny. But these fun-loving adventurers extended the range 
of their profitable amusement. They concluded that as it was 
troublesome to obtain a disinterred corpse, it was only fair that 
the one they procured should reimburse them by serving five 
times over in the way of substitution for the individuals, or 



PRETENDED DEATH. 31 

rather the dummies, that had been insured for their benefit. 
The funny part for them and the serious feature for the com- 
panies was that the claims thus set up were paid without ques- 
tion or investigation. 

But the comedy came to an untimely end. One of Pink- 
erton's sternest detectives, Gustav Frank, appeared on the 
scene of action and rang the curtain down. 

A GERMAN-AMERICAN WIFE-MURDERER. 

In October, 1892, Hugo Wahler, a German, 30 years of age, 
and his wife removed from Indianapolis to Toledo, O. In 
the following March the police were after him on the charge 
of poisoning Mrs. Wahler, the motive being collection of an 
insurance amounting to $5,000. It appears that May Neese, 
a domestic, 26 years of age, was engaged to do housework 
for them, and that a short time afterward Mrs. Wahler pro- 
posed a trip to Chicago via Detroit, and persuaded Miss Neese 
to accompany her. At Detroit the two women visited the 
office of the Equitable Life, and Mrs. Wahler persuaded her 
companion to have her life insured for $5,000. She also in- 
duced the girl to pass herself off as Mrs. Hugo Wahler and 
the policy was made out in that way. Shortly after, the family 
moved to South Bend, Ind., and Miss Neese went with them. 
Suddenly Miss Neese became ill and complained of nausea 
with painful swelling of her face. She suspected that she was 
being systematically poisoned, and becoming frightened, left 
the house, and went to Chicago. Wahler and his wife returned 
to Toledo in February. Here Mrs. Wahler was taken sick, 
the symptoms being the same as those suffered by the girl. 
On the night of February 20 Mrs. Wahler died. Mr. Wahler 
notified the insurance officials at Detroit of his wife's death, 
enclosed a copy of the death certificate, and demanded the 
$5,000 insurance due on the death of his wife. Insurance 
agents went to Toledo and investigated the matter. They ex- 
amined the corpse at the cemetery vault, and were astonished 
at the discovery made. It was not that of the woman that 
was insured in the name of Mrs. Wahler, and an autopsy of 
the body disclosed the presence of strychnine in the stomach. 
Wahler suddenly left town, and made his escape. 



32 PRETENDED DEATH. 

SUBSTITUTION OF A BODY OR PADDING. 

That " history repeats itself " is frequently shown in the sub- 
stitution of another body, or of padding, in a coffin, at the time 
of burial. There, for example, was Franz Tomatscheck, in 
Berlin, in 1848, who had been heavily insured, and who, im- 
pelled by irresistible curiosity, and disguised beyond recogni- 
tion, attended his own funeral. But when the police were put 
upon the trail, and disinterment took place, the contents of 
the coffin was found to consist of stone and straw. There 
was the case in 1874, of UhHng, a New York physician, who 
was convicted of an attempt to swindle a local life company, 
and sentenced to Sing Sing, where he served out his term. 
He certified to the death of an insured woman and the com- 
pany was called upon for payment, but suspicion led to an 
examination, and it was disclosed that instead of a dead woman 
there were a hundred and odd pounds of bricks in the coffin 
for the death of the contents of which payment was demanded. 
In another case, the coffin was filled with sand. This occurred 
in 1880, at Fillmore, a village in Andrew county, Missouri. 
The coffin was supposed to contain the remains of James 
Riggin, and was exhumed in consequence of well-grounded 
suspicions of fraud. Some time before, Riggin had insured his 
life for the benefit of his aged mother, and then left for the 
West. Soon afterward his brother-in-law received a letter 
announcing his death, at North Platte, and going thither, he 
returned with the coffin, which was not opened because of the 
supposed decayed condition of the remains. Application being 
made for the insurance, investigation led to the discovery of 
the sand, and exposure of an intended fraud, Riggin being 
still alive, and the principal agent in a conspiracy to defraud a 
life insurance company. 

A case which merits more than a passing notice, is that of 

VITAL DOUAT. 

One of the most remarkable of the London police is Ser- 
geant Druscovitch. No one looking at the short, blonde- 
mustached, and rather dandified young man, would suspect 
him of being the cleverest of detectives. He speaks any num- 
ber of languages, and is therefore nearly always sent abroad 



PRETENDED DEATH. 33 

when any case occurs in a non-English speaking country, need- 
ing the services of an EngHsh detective. In London his special 
work is among foreigners who go there as fugitives from jus- 
tice. Druscovitch was engaged to work up this case. 

In 1865 Vital Douat, a Bordeaux wine merchant, insured his 
life to the amount of 100,000 francs in one of the insurance 
offices of Paris, after which he returned to his place of busi- 
ness at Bordeaux. Shortly afterward he went to London, in 
order to escape the consequence of a fraudulent bankruptcy. 
Some time later his wife, clad in widow's weeds, presented her- 
self at the insurance office with the legal documentary proofs 
of her husband's death. Suspicion was aroused in the minds 
of the insurance officials at Paris, the money was not paid, and 
the case was forwarded to the British authorities for investiga- 
tion. Sergeant Druscovitch was called in, and succeeded in 
ascertaining the following extraordinary facts: Arriving in 
London, Douat took up his residence at Ford's Hotel, giving 
the name of Roberti, where, after remaining for a few days, he 
desired a French waiter at the hotel to write him out a certi- 
ficate in English, purporting to be signed by Dr. Critti, to the 
effect that one Vital Douat had died on the 29th of November, 
1865, of aneurism of the heart. On the ist of December this 
certificate was presented to the register of deaths at Plaistow, 
by Douat, who now assumed the name of Bernardi, and the 
death was registered in the usual way, it being stated that the 
body was then lying at No. 32 Ann Street, Plaistow. On the 
same day he procured a certificate from the register of deaths, 
and thereupon the sexton of St. Patrick's Cemetery, Low Lay- 
ton, ordered a grave to be dug. Douat, alias Bernardi, paid the 
regulated burial fees and appointed the following Sunday for the 
funeral. Having made these arrangements he then went to an 
undertaker, to whom he gave the name of Rubini, and pur- 
chased a full-sized ready-made coffin, in which he caused to be 
placed a thick lining of lead, and the handles altered from the 
sides to the ends of the cofiin, in the manner usually adopted 
in France and other Continental countries. Douat had the 
coffin conveyed to the cemetery, himself being the chief and 
only mourner. The coffin and supposed body were taken into 
the chapel of the cemetery, where the burial services were read 



34 PRETENDED DEATH. 

over it by the Rev. Mr. M'Quoid, and with all the ceremonies 
of the Roman Catholic Church the ostensible remains of Douat 
were consigned to the earth. The whole of these circum- 
stances, which in themselves were highly suspicious, induced 
Sergeant Druscovitch to apply for a license to exhume the 
coffin said to contain the body of Vital Douat. This having 
been obtained. Sergeant Druscovitch and two persons who were 
personally acquainted with Douat proceeded to the cemetery. 
Upon being exhumed, the coffin was opened in the presence 
of the officers and the two witnesses who had attended for the 
purpose of identifying the body of Douat, and was found 
empty. The whole of the burial was a sham. The weight of 
the supposed body of Douat had been made up for by the 
introduction of an additional quantity of metal to the lead 
lining. 

Upon these facts a warrant was granted for the apprehension 
of Douat, a search was immediately instituted by the officers, 
and the result was that they discovered the delinquent had 
taken his departure for America, and was thus beyond the pale 
of English law. 

Some time afterward he returned to Europe and went 
to Antwerp, where, in November 1866, he was arraigned 
before the Criminal Court for attempting to obtain sums 
of money from insurance companies by setting fire to goods he 
had insured at high rates. Two barrels of tar, and the debris 
of cases which contained resin, chips, alcohol, powder, and 
charcoal, were produced in court. An Antwerp underwriter 
had insured this property for $24,000 against sea risks. The 
prisoner represented that the cases and barrels contained laces 
and clocks valued at $50,000, for which he produced invoices. 
The cases, however, ignited in the quay before they were 
shipped on board the Diic-de-Brahant, the ship chartered to 
convey the cargo. The jury, after a lengthy trial, found the 
prisoner guilty, and sentence of death was passed on him; but 
the French government claimed him under its Extradition 
Act, and he was handed over to be dealt with by the tribunals 
of that country for his fraudulent bankruptcy and also for his 
attempted fraud on the Paris life-insurance office. 

For the latter offence he was tried, found guilty, and sen- 
tenced to penal servitude. 



PRETENDED DEATH. 35 

THE OHIO BROOM-CORN CASE. 

Toward the close of the year 1866, a plot was contrived to 
rob two or three life companies by a gang at Eaton, Preble 
County, Ohio, composed of B. M. Batchelor, an apothecary 
and local insurance agent; William Abbott, a class leader and 
mayor of Eaton; Dr. N. S. Richardson, who, on a previous 
occasion, had successfully swindled a life company out of 
$4,000, and his brother Frank, who lived near Lebanon. These 
confederated scamps invented a fictitious personage whom they 
named W. T. McFadden. This dummy, personated by the 
pious Abbott, was insured for a large amount, and when the 
plan was fully matured, managed to die on Christmas-eve of 
cholera, conveniently introduced at that unusual season because 
of the rapidly fatal collapse incident to the Asiatic malady. 
This part of the tragic farce was enacted in Frank Richardson's 
house in Lebanon. His wife, innocent soul, had been conve- 
niently sent to visit her own people, that the coast might be 
entirely clear for the conspirators. Frank called at an under- 
taker's, and ordered a cofifin for " a gentleman who had died at 
his house of cholera." Thence he went to the telegraph office 
and dispatched this message to Eaton, in care of Batchelor: 

" Mrs. Sarah McFadden : Your husband died here this morning. 
Answer." 

Hasty preparations were made for departure with the corpse 
to Eaton, where it was deemed advisable to have an immediate 
funeral. Chloride of lime was freely sprinkled about the prem- 
ises and cautious avoidance was enjoined upon the neighbors. 
The coffin-lid was screwed down, and the mournful satisfaction 
of gazing upon the remains was denied. The only assistance 
solicited was to lift the coffin into a wagon early on the follow- 
ing morning, which was done by friends and neighbors cheer- 
fully, but not without a twinge of suspicion of foul play. The 
Richardson brothers — there were four of them — were all 
clouded with a bad reputation. If they had borne a better 
character, the good people of the vicinity would not have sus- 
pected criminal taint, even under such strange and singular 
circumstances. But after the wagon had been driven off they 
freely discussed among themselves these unusual proceedings, 
and the more they compared notes, the more they became con- 



36 PRETENDED DEATH. 

vinced that the interference of the legal authorities was de- 
manded. Accordingly, Dr. H. White, the coroner, started in 
pursuit to Carlisle Station, whither Frank had said he intended 
to take the body for shipment to Eaton. Arriving at Carlisle, 
the coroner failed to obtain any tidings whatever of the funeral 
party, and the suspicion that a very serious crime had been 
committed was strengthened hour by hour. Frank Richard- 
son's house was searched by an eager crowd ; officers were dis- 
patched to Eaton, and telegrams from the latter place disclosed 
the fact that no man of the name of W. T. McFadden had 
ever lived there, though, to complicate matters, a woman called 
Sarah McFadden, professing to have a husband named W. T., 
had spent some weeks in Eaton, shortly before, but had gone 
away, no one knew whither. 

Frank Richardson turned up at Winchester, near Eaton, 
where he was met by a hearse and a carriage containing two 
women closely veiled. The coffin was transferred to the hearse, 
and the little procession proceeded on its way with the solem- 
nity befitting a funeral occasion. The movement was timed so 
as to reach the churchyard at midnight. Dr. Richardson, in 
order that his " dear friend Mac." might have the full benefit 
of Christian burial, had engaged the attendance at the grave of 
his beloved pastor, and at his special request the clergyman 
delivered a brief discourse upon the uncertainty of life. Dr. 
Richardson was a member of the church, and, though not in 
good standing, was recognized as such. 

This dramatic scene occurred on the night of December 25, 
1866. Early the next morning the Lebanon officials arrested 
the actors who had thus devised and performed their parts in 
the midnight burial. They then endeavored to employ the 
sexton in the work of disinterment, but found that personage 
rather shaky. He had had the cholera once, and he was " afeard 
of it;" "the blamed thing," said he, ''smelt powerful bad last 
night," and its disturbance, in his view, would be attended with 
dangerous consequences. A greenback, however, overpowered 
his resistance, and, swallowing his aversion, he went vigorously 
to work. The grave was opened and the coffin was raised, but 
on lifting the lid the searchers found, not a body, but a few 
sacks filled with broom-corn seed. 



PRETENDED DEATH. 37 

Upon this unexpected discovery the two Richardsons and 
Batchelor were taken to jail. The other conspirators escaped, 
the woman returning to Cincinnati, where she was a notorious 
cyprian, and, as Abbott, the personator of McFadden, was 
declared to be dead, and as there is no warrant of authority to 
arrest a man for being dead, the scamp was allowed to go 
unnoticed. 

A TRICK THAT DID NOT SUCCEED. 

In the month of July, 1865, the body of a dead woman,, in 
an advanced stage of decomposition, was discovered in a field 
adjoining the town of Richmond, Indiana. A coroner's jury 
was at once impanelled, and the evidence taken before it went 
to show that it was the body of Mrs. Mary Davis, wife of John 
B. Davis, a shoemaker who resided in Richmond. Mrs. Davis 
had been missing from home for some time, and could not be 
found. The clothing upon the dead body was recognized as 
that of Mrs. Davis. The decayed condition of the body was 
such that it could not be determined whether or not there were 
external evidences of violence upon it, but it was generally 
conceded that she had been murdered. 

It subsequently appeared that Mrs. Davis was insured in the 
Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company for $2,500, and 
in the New York Life Insurance Company for $3,000. Proofs 
of death, based upon the evidence brought before the coroner, 
were furnished to each company, and the New York Life 
paid the amount of its policy to the guardian of Mrs. Davis' 
children. The Connecticut Mutual would not pay on the evi- 
dence of death produced, and suit was brought to recover the 
amount. The company instituted a thorough investigation of 
the case, and was soon able to expose what proved to be a 
conspiracy to defraud. The missing Mrs. Davis was hunted 
down, and found living in the town of Greensburg, Westmore- 
land County, Pennsylvania. 

Afifidavits, one of a photographer who sent with it a photo- 
graph of the woman; one of a physician who had known her 
many years, and who saw and conversed with her at the date 
of his affidavit; and one of the identical Mary herself, dated 
January 7, 1867, were filed in court by the company, where- 



38 PRETENDED DEATH. 

upon the suit was discontinued. The New York Life at once 
brought suit against the guardian for the amount of insurance 
paid to him under their poHcy, and recovered the amount less 
court charges, and an allowance to the guardian, who had 
acted in good faith. 

Mr. Davis had rejoined his wife in Pennsylvania, and, when 
found, both were preparing to go South as soon as the money 
on the Connecticut Mutual policy was paid to them. Luckily 
for the New York Life, the money paid by that company went 
into the hands of a guardian, instead of into the hands of Mr. 
Davis, who was the principal party to the conspiracy, beyond a 
doubt. 

THE RADLOFF CONSPIRACY. 

On the morning of the i6th of April, 1892, the house of 
William Radlofif, situated about four miles north of Seattle, 
Wash., in the woods, and remote from neighbors, was found 
to have been burned to the ground. In the ruins were the 
charred remains of a man. The natural inference on the part 
of the neighbors was that Radlofif, who had been sleeping there 
alone more than a week, had perished. 

Radloflf was a German, 28 years old, and had married two 
or three years before an American wife with whom he had not 
been happy. For three or four months a handsome young 
Austrian, Louis Kostrauch, lived with the family and was on 
very good terms with the wife. At the time of the fire she 
and her baby were visiting her parents near Tacoma. Kos- 
trauch was also absent, and the authorities jumped to the con- 
clusion that Kostrauch had murdered RadlofT in order that 
Mrs. RadlofiF might be free to marry him. 

Kostrauch was arrested. In his possession were found a 
love-letter from Mrs. Radlofif and a money order made out for 
her by her husband. Kostrauch was at first reticent and denied 
having talked with Radloflf the day before the fire. At last he 
said that perhaps he might tell what he knew if he were assured 
that he would not be hanged. The police were convinced that 
they had the criminal in their hands and searched no further. 

The case was then complicated by the discovery that within 
two months Radloflf had taken out $55,000 life insurance, $20,- 
000 in the New York Life, $20,000 in the Equitable, and 



PRETENDED DEATH. 39 

$15,000 in the Mutual Life. The insurance men indined to 
the beHef that Radloff was not dead, but had entered into a 
conspiracy to defraud the companies. 

A cemetery, near the Radloff house, was examined, and evi- 
dence was obtained that the body in the ruins had been taken 
from one of the graves there. The chain of proof was so com- 
plete that at the inquest the whole story came out by Kos- 
trauch's confession. 

Kostrauch said that he and Radlofif and Mrs. Radloff planned 
the whole affair. Radlofif on March 9 applied for insurance in 
the three companies named, and was passed by the physician 
as a first-class risk. In the Mutual Life he paid an annual 
premium on his policy, and in the two others he arranged to 
have the payments made quarterly. In each case he made pay- 
ment within two weeks of the fire. The amount of the insur- 
ance was considered by the agents as rather remarkable, but 
Radlofif, who had lived in this country for over eight years, 
had made a snug fortune in real estate, and also professed to 
have a steady income from family estates at Mecklenburg, in 
the old country. He said his wife had consulted a fortune- 
teller, who had predicted his death, and he had taken out the 
life insurance to allay her nervousness. 

A few days after the medical examiners had passed him, 
and the applications had been sent to the home offices for 
acceptance, Radlofif and Kostrauch went by night to the ceme- 
tery and dug up the body of R. D. Lewin, a neighbor of about 
the same age as Radlofif, who had died of consumption on 
February 17. They took out the cofiftn, but left the wooden 
box that had enclosed it. The cofifin with the body was buried 
again in the chicken yard near Radlofif's house. Then the 
conspirators waited for the insurance policies. When they 
were received and everything was ready, Mrs. Radlofif was 
sent away to her parents, and Radlofif and Kostrauch dug up 
the body, stripped it, and put a pair of Radlofif's old trousers 
on it and laid it in Radlofif's bed. Then they filled the room 
with shavings, poured coal oil all about the house, placed an 
axe near the bed, and set two lighted candles in the midst of 
the inflammable materials. 

The candles burned down in about three hours, and the men, 



40 PRETENDED DEATH. 

who had by this time got well away from the Scene, saw the 
flames light up the sky. Radloff, as was afterward learned, 
started the same night for San Francisco, but Kostrauch 
remained behind. He played a clever part after his arrest, 
hoping to be considered a murderer and to divert the officers 
so that no description of Radloff would be telegraphed abroad. 
He was, however, prepared to prove an alibi later. 

The grave of Lewin was found empty and the handles of 
the coffin were picked up in the ruins of Radloff's house. Mrs. 
Radlofif denied any knowledge of the conspiracy, though 
Kostrauch says they were all to meet in Germany, and enjoy 
the life-insurance money. 

A few days after these revelations another sensational phase 
in the case was developed in the arrest of Dr. Frank R. Ballard, 
of Fremont; a suburb of Seattle. The arrest was made on the 
confession of Mrs. Radloff, partly through fear of Radlofif, on 
account of Ballard's intimacy with her. Ballard entered into a 
plot with Radloff and Kostrauch to defraud the life-insurance 
companies out of $55,000. It was arranged that Ballard would 
swear that the cadaver found in the burned ruins of the Radloff 
house was William Radloff's body. This he did. He was 
also to assist Mrs. Radloff, who was to remain at Seattle, in 
collecting the insurance from the life companies. For his 
aid he was to receive $10,000. The police were already on the 
track of Radloff, and soon had him, as well as the rest of the 
gang, in custody. 

A BELGIAN MONSTER. 
The case of a Belgian murderer, dating back to 1888, fur- 
nishes a remarkable instance of false personation and of subse- 
quent substitution of a body. A man styling himself Hoyos 
Figue (the latter being the name of his mistress) applied to 
the Phenix Company, Paris, to insure for 100,000 francs a 
cousin, Hippolyte Hoyos, a commercial traveller. The com- 
pany requiring a medical examination, he suggested that as 
his cousin was rarely in Paris he might be examined at Chartres. 
This was done, but Hoyos personated his supposed cousin. 
Shortly after, a dead body was discovered in the wood at 
Chantilly, and was identified by Hoyos as that of his cousin. 



PRETENDED DEATH. 41 

It turned out that Hoyos enticed to Chantilly a workman in 
his employment, named Louis Baron, a Belgian, and mur- 
dered him. Hoyos was arrested on suspicion at Valenciennes, 
and the body exhumed. The clothes were recognized as hav- 
ing formerly been worn by Hoyos, who is believed, therefore, 
to have given them to the victim. The body was found on the 
railway, and a train had gone over one leg. This was appar- 
ently arranged, because Baron limped, in order that the mal- 
formation of the leg might not be detected. The body of the 
man murdered at Chantilly was admitted by Hoyos to be that 
of his'workman Baron. Hoyos, however^ denied that he mur- 
dered him, and he at first pretended that he had never been 
at Chantilly, but, on a publican identifying him as a customer, 
he acknowledged having visited the village. Besides the insur- 
ance for 100,000 francs, he had added to it in another office 
80,000 francs. 

Such was the report as first published. It afterward appeared 
that instead of substituting a murdered body for the living 
body of his cousin, he changed his plans. He had his own 
life insured in various offices for i250,ooo francs, and as Louis 
Baron bore a strong personal resemblance to himself, he 
selected him as a victim, as stated, but with the change in his 
purpose, the body of Baron was made to pose as his own. 
He dressed the body with his own clothes, left in the pockets 
various documents belonging to himself (Hoyos), and a will 
drawn up by the murderer leaving everything to Louis Baron. 
The victim was buried as Hoyos, and then Hoyos, under the 
name of Baron, attempted to collect the insurance money. 
Fortunately, he did not prove as effective an actor as a mur- 
derer, and suspicion having been aroused, Hoyos was arrested, 
and taken to Chantilly for trial. 

The revelations of his previous career that then ensued were 
startling. Fourteen years before, the desperado insured his 
wife's life for $20,000. A few weeks afterward she was killed 
by a horse's kick, Hoyos said, but it was proved that he had 
just previously bought a horseshoe and fastened it to the end 
of a mallet. He was a man of enormous physical strength, 
and there is little reason to doubt that he killed the woman with 
the strange weapon. But Hoyos was acquitted in the absence 
of actual proof. 



42 PRETENDED DEATH. 

The following year he killed a Belgian judge, but again 
escaped punishment owing to imperfect evidence. After a 
term of imprisonment for forgery he went to France, where 
for years he led a mysterious life, constantly changing his 
name. In 1885 he returned to Belgium, was convicted of 
swindling, and sent to prison for two years. At the expira- 
tion of his sentence he returned to Paris with a young woman 
whom he had persuaded to elope with him. He ill-used and 
finally deserted the girl, and then he became a land steward, 
and was dismissed for attempting to strangle the gamekeeper. 

A HUNGARIAN ASSASSIN. 

Somewhat similar to the procedure of Hoyos was that of a 
cattle dealer named Grunbaum living at Neusohl, in Hungary, 
who disappeared from view. As he was known to be in fair 
circumstances and good health, it was naturally apprehended 
that he had fallen a victim to foul play, and a diligent search 
was instituted. The result was that in a wood not far from 
the town a mutilated corpse was found, in the pockets of the 
clothes of which were letters addressed to Grunbaum, and 
which was at once recognized by Grunbaum's wife as the body 
of her husband. Not very long before his disappearance 
Grunbaum had insured his life to the amount of 10,000 florins 
in one office and 5,000 florins in another in the city of Pesth. 
Soon after the funeral, in fact, in quite indecent haste, these 
sums were claimed by his widow, to whom everything was 
left by the will of the deceased. Before the pohcies were paid, 
however, the suspicions of one of the offices were excited by 
some chance ; inquiries were made, and finally it was discovered 
that Grunbaum was still alive. He was at once arrested; and 
it was discovered that he himself murdered a stranger he met 
in the wood where the body was found, dressed the corpse in 
his clothes, putting on himself those of the dead man, and 
placed his letters in the pockets of his victim. His wife was 
to draw the policies payable on the death of her husband, and 
the two then intended to emigrate under another name to 
America. 



PRETENDED DEATH. 43 

A DOUBLE IMPERSONATION. 

In a recent case reported from New York city, an alleged 
wife failed to obtain a recommendation from a suspicious ex- 
aminer of a prominent company. On the principle *' if at first 
you don't succeed, try, try again," the husband undertook to 
impose another woman on another company, and this time he 
succeeded. It appears that in the early part of May, 1895, ^ 
woman who gave her name as Mrs. Annie Silverman, and said 
she was the wife of Wolf Silverman, of Broome street, called 
on Dr. George E. Steel, medical examiner for the New York 
Life Insurance Company. She wished to -take out a policy of 
insurance and asked the doctor to make the usual medical 
examination. He did so, and found her to> be a strong, healthy 
woman. She was, in fact, in such excellent physical condition 
that the most careful insurance company would have readily 
accepted her as a risk. Dr. Steel, however, notwithstanding 
the satisfactory medical test she had undergone, was not satis- 
fied with appearances. For one thing, she told the doctor 
she was of German nationality, when she was obviously Irish, 
and there were other things that confirmed his unfavorable 
impressions, and hence he advised rejection. 

A few days later Wolf Silverman, accompanied by a woman 
who, he alleged, was his wife, visited the office of the Empire 
Life Insurance Company, formerly the Home Benefit, and 
negotiated for an insurance upon her life. Everything was 
apparently regular, and on May 13 a policy for $3,000 upon the 
life of Mrs. Annie Silverman was issued. On June 29, after 
a lapse of only forty-six days, Silverman informed the com- 
pany that his wife had died, and made a claim for the insur- 
ance money. That so healthy a woman as the presumed Mrs. 
Silverman should die so soon after being insured naturally 
created doubts in the minds of the Empire officials, and in the 
course of inquiry into the history of the case, they consulted 
Dr. Steel. Comparisons failed to point to any resemblance 
between the woman Dr. Steel examined and the one who 
accompanied Wolf Silverman to the Empire Life office. There- 
upon the latter company contested Silverman's claim, and 
through its attorneys obtained an order for the taking up of 
the body. On behalf of Silverman an injunction to restrain 



44 PRETENDED DEATH. 

digging up the body was secured. The attorneys for the com- 
pany, however, persisted in their efforts to have the body taken 
up, and eventually succeeded in having Silverman's injunction 
set aside. When the exhumation took place, it was discov- 
ered that the body which had been buried was not that of 
either of the women who had previously figured as Wolf Sil- 
verman's wife. But while there seemed to be little room for 
doubt that a deliberate attempt to deceive had been made, there 
was no ground for suspecting that the woman whose body 
was exhumed met her death by foul play. The probable view 
is that Silverman's legitimate wife was attacked by serious ill- 
ness, and he, knowing that no insurance company would accept 
her in that condition, had her falsely impersonated by some 
one else. 

AN EAST INDIAN TRICK. 
In October, 1895, a Brahmin named Rajkisto Chatter] i was 
charged in the Police Court at Calcutta with having defrauded 
the Oriental Life Assurance Company of Rs. 16,000, and with 
having committed forgery for that purpose. It appears that 
about two years ago accused, who gave his name as Susti 
Dass Roy, insured his life in the company for the sum men- 
tioned. After premiums had been paid on the policy for 
twelve months Jogabandu Roy, a well-to-do Bengali, residing 
in Bally ganj, addressed a letter to the Bengal representatives of 
the Oriental Life, informing them that Susti Dass Roy was 
dead, that deceased had assigned the policy to him, and asked 
that arrangements should be made for the payment of the 
amount due. The letter was accompanied by a certificate from 
a native doctor named Ruttikanta Ghose, who testified to hav- 
ing attended Susti Dass Roy (giving the address of the house 
of the supposed deceased) for two months, and to being with 
him when he died. Jogabandu also sent a certificate of iden- 
tity of the supposed deceased. Some time afterwards it was 
discovered that the Susti Dass Roy who had insured his life, 
and was supposed to be dead, was still alive, that his real name 
was Rajkisto Chatterji, and that, in collusion with the other 
Babu and the native doctor, the fraud had been perpetrated. 
A warrant was thereupon applied for, and after seven months 



PRETENDED DEATH. 45 

the supposed Susti Dass Roy was arrested at Etawah in the 
North- West Provinces. The prisoner pleaded guihy, and after 
formal evidence had been recorded he was remanded. After- 
wards warrants were obtained for the arrest of Jogabandu Roy 
and Dr. Ruttikanta Ghose. 

UNSUCCESSFUL ''COUNTERFEIT PRESENTMENT." 

In February, 1889, old Mr. O'Brien, a quiet and retired 
citizen of Mahanoy City, Pa., became so ill that he was not 
expected to live. His son, who was a Justice of the Peace, 
and the latter's friend Pat Foley, who was a constable, thought 
that this was an opportunity which ought to be improved. To 
obtain insurance they hired a man named Gallagher to per- 
sonate Mr. O'Brien for the medical examination. Dr. H. A. 
Klock passed Gallagher under the name of O'Brien as an 
acceptable risk in the Prudential Mutual Aid Association. Dr. 
Klock was not deceived by the false personation, inasmuch 
as he was a party to the intended fraud. Fictitious proofs of 
loss were submitted to the Association, and the sum of $1,200 
was paid to Squire O'Brien. In the division of the money 
one of the conspirators was left out. After repeated threats 
of exposure had failed to bring him any return, he " squealed." 
His revenge took the shape of a letter to the Prudential. The 
company hired Captain Dougherty, a Pinkerton detective, to 
investigate the case. He spent a few days in Mahanoy City, 
and got to the bottom of the scheme. The result of his work 
was the arrest of Squire O'Brien, Constable Foley, Dr. Klock 
and Mr. Gallagher as parties to the fraud. All four were taken 
before Squire Ketner, who, after a brief hearing, put them 
under $1,000 bail each. Gallagher at the hearing was pointed 
out by the detective as the man who was examined. The 
affair created a great sensation, as all the parties concerned 
were prominent in political circles. 



46 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

GAMBLING ON UNINSURABLE INTEREST ; THE PENNSYLVANIA 

GRAVEYARD EPIDEMIC ; THE BELFAST AND 

BLACKBURN SCANDALS. 

Kent, in his " Commentaries," says : " The necessity of an 
interest in the life insured, in order to support the pohcy, 
prevails generally in this country, because wager contracts are 
almost universally held to be unlawful, either in consequence 
of some statute provision, or upon principles of the common 
law." 

In the early history of life insurance, this disregard of the 
question of insurable interest led to gambling of the most per- 
nicious sort. Although the abuses incident to this speculative 
practice in England, as graphically described by Mr. Francis, 
have yielded to prohibitive statutes, it appears that in some 
countries it is not unusual, even at the present day, to effect 
insurances upon the lives of individuals not connected in any 
way with the wagering parties. Among illustrative cases may 
be cited the following curious instance: 

SWEDISH GAMBLING. 

In 1855, one Svenson, of Carlscrona, insured the life of 
an old soldier, named Hofifstedt, of the same place, in the 
Mentor Company of London for 8,000 rix-doUars, and in the 
Paternelle Company of Paris for 7,500 francs. In August, 
1856, Hofifstedt died, and Svenson claimed the amount insured 
in the two offices. The Mentor Company paid at once; but 
the Paternelle thought it advisable to institute an investiga- 
tion respecting the death. It then turned out that Hoff- 
stedt was a confirmed drunkard, and that Svenson supplied 
him money to enable him to drink brandy in excess, his 
object being, it was affirmed, to hasten his death. The old 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 47 

soldier at last died very suddenly, and the rumor was spread 
that Svenson had poisoned him by putting arsenic in the 
brandy. The dead body was examined, and arsenic was found 
in it. Svenson was consequently arrested and brought to trial 
before the Criminal Court of the district, on the charge of 
poisoning. But the charge could not be established. He was 
acquitted. As, however, he was proved to have had arsenic in his 
possession — and in Sweden, this is illegal for a private person — 
he was fined sixteen rix-dollars. On an appeal, the judgment 
was confirmed. The public prosecutor then petitioned the 
King to cause the man to be imprisoned in a fortress, on the 
ground that there was no moral doubt of his guilt. In August, 
1857, his Majesty refused this petition; and at length the man 
was released. Meantime he had become bankrupt. The 
assignees now instituted proceedings for payment against the 
Patemelle Company, in Paris. The ground on which they 
based the action was, that the judgments of the Swedish 
courts proved clearly that no murder had been perpetrated, 
and that the company could not prove that Hofifstedt com- 
mitted suicide, so the insurance remained valid. The com- 
pany, however, contended, first, that the judgments of the 
Swedish courts were not binding in France, and consequently 
that this acquittal of the man amounted to nothing in the eye 
of the law; next, that as Hofifstedt had undoubtedly died of 
poison, it was clear either that he had committed suicide, or 
that he had been poisoned by the man who was to benefit by 
his death, either of which cases, in France, rendered an insur- 
ance invalid. The Civil Tribunal, adopting the arguments of 
the company, rejected the action. 
• 

A THEATRICAL MANAGER'S VENTURE. 

The English statute of 14 Geo. III., c. 48, prohibited insur- 
ance on lives when the person insuring had no interest in the 
life; and it prohibited the recovery of a greater sum than the 
amount or value of the interest of the insured in the life. 
As Angell remarks, "Insurance upon lives, as well as upon 
other events in which the person insured has no interest, not 
only inevitably tends to introduce a pernicious sort of gam- 
bling and speculation, but it is pregnant with serious mischief." 



48 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

Notwithstanding the statute referred to, the criminal annals of 
England furnish a number of cases of this sort of gambling, 
even to the extent of murder, in order to recover under a 
fictitious claim of interest. 

In this country, as already quoted from Kent, the necessity 
of an interest in the life insured, to support the policy, generally 
prevails. Of the various instances of wanton disregard of an 
insurable interest which have occurred in the United States, 
one of the most noteworthy cases is that of Robert Fox, pro- 
prietor of a variety theatre in Philadelphia. 

The history of this case shows that in May, 1872, Mr. Fox 
made application to the Penn Mutual Life Insurance Company 
for a policy for $20,000 on the life of John Clark Lee, which 
was accepted. The premium was to be paid partly in cash 
and partly by note. Mr. Fox paid the amount required in 
cash, $460.86, but never executed or delivered the note for the 
balance. On or about May 20 — less than a week after date 
of the policy — the president heard some reports relative to the 
character and habits of Lee, so entirely at variance with his 
statements made in the application and in his medical examina- 
tion, that an investigation was at once ordered, and in a few 
days it was ascertained that all the reports referred to were 
entirely trustworthy. The president immediately wrote to Mr. 
Fox, requesting him to call at the ofifice of the company, which 
he did. He was informed of the results of the investigation and 
charged with knowledge of the facts. To this he made no 
denial. The president then stated to him that the policy would 
never have been issued had not the truth been concealed and 
facts misrepresented, and proposed to return him the premium 
which he had paid and cancel the policy. 

He refused to take the money, and declined to surrender the 
policy. 

The president then had prepared and served upon him a 
formal notice, of which the following is a copy : 

PmLADELPmA, June 8th, 1872. 
Robert Fox, Esq. 

Dear Sir— Harving recently learned some facts in connection with 
the habits of John Clark Lee, upon whose life a policy of insurance 
was issued by this company May 15, 1872, No. 13,544, "for twenty 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 49 

thousand dollars," in your favor and for your benefit, the knowledge 
of which facts, I have reason to believe, was designedly withheld by 
the assured from the officers of the company, and which, had they 
been known to the company, would have prevented the issue of the 
policy, I deem it to be my duty to notify you at once that the com- 
pany does not consider itself bound by this policy, and desires to 
cancel and annul the same. I herewith tender to you the amount of 
cash paid for the premium, the interest on the credit, and the policy 
fee, in all amounting to $460.86, and request a return of the policy 
for cancellation. In default of your accepting this view of the matter, 
I hereby give you notice that the company refuses to consider itself 
responsible for said policy, or for any liability under the same, and 
will hereafter refuse to accept any future premium for such insurance. 

Yours respectfully, 

Samuel C. Huey, President. 

The policy was then ruled ofif the books of the company, and 
the premium received ($460.86) passed to the personal credit 
of Mr. Fox, where it stood subject to his order. Of this action 
Mr. Fox was fully advised. 

No further steps were taken in the matter, nor was any 
tender ever made by Mr. Fox of the balance of the premium. 
Before the next annual premium would have been due, Mr. 
Lee died, and Mr. Fox demanded the amount of the policy. 
Payment was refused, and the officers of the company were 
satisfied that the insured members and the community at large, 
when acquainted with the facts, would fully justify their course 
in resisting this claim, based as it was upon a policy obtained 
originally by fraud and misrepresentation, and formally repudi- 
ated by the company in a few days after its issue. 

Upon the trial of the cause the plaintiff put in evidence the 
policy, proved the death of Lee some nine or ten months sub- 
sequent to the date of the policy, and attempted to prove an 
insurable interest simply by his own oath. He admitted that 
he had no note, check, receipt, entry in cash-book or check-book, 
or scratch of pen of any kind to substantiate his statement, and 
that he had no witness to the existence of the indebtedness except 
himself. 

The defense set up as their reasons for resisting the claim : 

I. A cancellation of the policy, as already detailed. 2. The 
total want of insurable interest on the part of Robert Fox in 
the life of Lee. 3. Gross and fraudulent misrepresentation in 



50 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

the application for the policy and to the medical examiner; and 
4. Preparation of Lee for the medical examination by means 
of Turkish baths, suspended drinking, clean clothing, etc. 

They put in evidence the application, in which Lee stated, 
among other things, that he had always been sober and tem- 
perate; that he was an advertising agent; that he was in good 
health, and that he had concealed nothing with which the 
company ought to be made acquainted; and the certificate of 
the examiners, to whom Lee had stated that he did not use 
any spirits, opium, or tobacco, except an occasional cigar. 

They then, by witnesses, traced Lee step by step, for the 
ten or fifteen years previous to his death, in New York, Wash- 
ington and Philadelphia, and showed that he had been an 
habitual hard drinker; a man of notoriously dissipated habits; 
a man whose employments had been those of keeping bar and 
distributing theatre bills; and that at the date of the insurance 
he was a door-keeper and distributor of play-bills at the plain- 
tiff's variety theatre. Over forty witnesses testified, in the 
most positive manner, with reference to his intemperate habits, 
and the proof was of the most convincing character. Wit- 
nesses were then produced to prove by Lee's own declarations 
that he had been attacked by mania a potu; that he was sick 
and sufifering from dissipation; and that prior to effecting the 
insurance Mr. Fox had, for a short time, kept him from liquor, 
supplying its place with other stimulants; had sent him to the 
Turkish baths; had given him clean clothing, and thoroughly 
prepared him for the medical examination, with the character 
of which he (Fox) was himself perfectly familiar. 

The Court declined to admit this testimony on legal grounds. 

Employers, associates, his room-mate, police ofiFicers, all 
united in describing John Clark Lee as a debauched, dissipated 
man, but one who, by his naturally good constitution and 
robust build, could stand more liquor than most of those with 
whom he associated. 

The plaintiff attempted to break the force of this evidence 
by calling attaches of his own and other variety theatres and 
asking them the simple question, ** Did you ever see Lee 
drunk?" No other question was hazarded, and Fox himself 
did not dare to- go on the stand and testify as to Lee's habits. 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 51 

The facts relative to the cancellation of the policy within a 
few days of its issue, and with the full knowledge of both Fox 
and Lee, were not disputed. 

Medical testimony relative to the condition of the body of 
Lee after death was submitted by both plaintiff and defendant. 

Both sides having addressed the jury, the judge delivered 
his charge and the case was given to the jury. Few, if any, 
aside from the plaintiff's immediate friends, imagined a possi- 
bility of hesitation in finding for the defendant, and yet the 
next morning a verdict was rendered for the plaintiff, and the 
damage assessed at $20,691.25. 

The company at once applied to have the verdict set aside 
and a new trial granted, and were successful in their appli- 
cation. The case, however, was wisely abandoned by Mr. Fox. 



THE PENNSYLVANIA GRAVEYARD EPIDEMIC. 

The Pennsylvania co-operatives, which for a period of sev- 
eral months in 1880 confined their infamous traffic in human 
life to portions of Lebanon, Berks, Montgomery, York, and 
Luzerne counties, were emboldened by a mania for specula- 
tion to enlarge the area of their operations until public atten- 
tion at last became aroused to the facilities and incentives they 
offered for the commission of crime. To give the public 
definite ideas of the freedom and latitude allowed to the dev- 
iltry which these concerns created and fostered, the Phila- 
delphia newspapers published lists and particulars of cases of 
speculative insurance, furnished by trustworthy reporters and 
correspondents. Some of them disclose mere purpose to 
defraud by gambling on the lives of consumptives, or octo- 
genarians, or tramps, or paupers; others reveal deliberate con- 
spiracy to hasten their claim to maturity by murder. 

An instance of the former was that of Mrs. Emma Reinart, 
in Amity township, Berks County, while staying in her father's 
house. She had been living with her husband, near Phoenix- 
ville, for some time, but when in the last stage of consump- 
tion she returned to her father's home, and there died. It \v2ls 



52 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

then learned that her Hfe had been insured to the amount of 
$26,000 in various co-operatives, the poHcies being mostly in 
favor of one Samuel Shirey, a first cousin of the woman, a 
person who had no more insurable interest in her life than the 
man in the moon. She was passed by the examiners, who 
were either quacks of the lowest grade or despicable scoundrels, 
and accepted as a sound risk. 

Another example was that of Daniel L. Wagner, of Bernville, 
fifteen miles from Reading. This man, a farmer, 71 years of 
age, had been debilitated by chronic diarrhoea, for which he had 
been under treatment for months; and while lying insensible 
under an apoplectic seizure, a rascally representative of some 
of the co-operatives tempted his son into consent to the issue 
of certificates upon the life of the dying man, upon promise 
of a handsome " divvy." After the latter's death it was dis- 
covered that some of the certificates had been altered, hundreds 
being changed to thousands, until they called for an aggregate 
of $15,000. 

Mrs. Mary Fry, of Donnelly's Mills, Perry County, Pa., aged 
sixty-three, died November 10, 1888, of disease of the heart 
and general dropsy. She had been confined to her bed during 
the last year of her life, and her suffering was so great as to 
attract the sympathy of the neighborhood. Within five months 
of her death, her son, Samuel S. Fry, without her knowledge 
and consent, obtained certificates of insurance on her life to 
the amount of $27,500, in twelve assessment companies. Pre- 
sentation of the claims led to investigation and subsequent 
discovery of the fraud. Fry was indicted for perjury in mak- 
ing the affidavits accompanying the proofs of loss. The 
grand jury ignored the bill, on the assumption that there was 
not legal perjury in making out the proofs of death, whatever 
moral perjury there might have been in the transaction. The 
scoundrelly son, who was thus anxious to gamble upon the 
lingering remnant of his mother's life as she lay upon her 
death-bed, was assisted in his villainy by the local physician, the 
local preacher, and other village magnates. It w^as a sad story 
of utter insensibility to the sacredness of family ties, not only 
on the part of men fitted by nature and training for the peni- 
tentiary, but among a class to whom society had a right to 
look for better example. 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 53 

An illustration of the darker side of the picture is furnished 
in the case of Martin Callahan, a poor miner, in the neighbor- 
hood of Scranton. He was seventy years of age, lived in great 
poverty with his family, and nine days after he was insured 
for $i,ooo he was a corpse. Suspicion led to exhumation of 
the body, and a post-mortem examination gave evidence of a 
blow upon the head by a blunt instrument sufficient to cause 
death, coupled with signs of a fierce struggle. 

More brutal and more tragic was the murder of Joseph 
Raber, a feeble old man who lived among the wood-choppers 
and the charcoal-burners of the primitive forests of Lebanon 
County. Half a dozen of his neighbors, ruffianly and semi- 
civilized wretches, after selecting him as a victim, effected an 
insurance of $30,000 through an inn-keeper named Brandt. 
On completing their arrangements, they decoyed him to a 
plank over a small and narrow stream not more than twenty 
inches deep, tripped him over into the water, and then jumped 
upon him and pressed him down until he was drowned. Their 
names were Henry Wise, Israel Brandt, Isaiah Hummel, 
Charles Drews, Frank Stechler, and George Zechman. The 
crime was discovered, and the assassins were brought to trial 
and convicted, the testimony for the prosecution being sus- 
tained by the confession of Drews and Stechler. All of them 
were executed except Zechman. 

The disclosures of this scandalous roguery showed that in 
some cases paupers were insured to the amount of $60,000 or 
$80,000; that drunkards were insured for large sums, and then 
supplied with rum enough to kill them; that dying men and 
women were passed as good risks by collusive agents and 
examiners, and the policies were " put upon the market " by 
desperate gamblers anxious to realize money before the call 
upon the undertaker; in brief, that the worst forms of wagering 
in the history of gambling insurance were carried to an extent 
never before attempted. Whenever the doomed wretches lin- 
gered for an inconvenient length of time, they were in danger 
of assassination by the impatient vampires. As no insurable 
interest was required, no one's life was safe. The fact that it 
was possible to perpetrate such frauds with temporary success 
and impunity is surprising enough; but the* other fact, that 



54 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

under such a system it was not only not for the interest of the 
officers of the companies to ferret out such villainy and crush 
it, but that it might be made to increase their own emoluments 
by adding to the expense funds of the companies, was yet 
more startling. That thousands of members might be made 
to contribute to the payment of large policies, only a small 
portion of which went to the family of the deceased, while the 
lion's share went to unprincipled speculators, showed the rot- 
tenness of the system itself. Conversations, like the following, 
at Pottstown, were frequently reported : 

" Do you want to put yourself on your feet? " 

" I'd like to, if I only knew how." 

"I'll tell you. There's old man Richardson; he'll die soon; he 
can't last three months, anyhow. Now, if you want a $2,000 policy 
on him I'll let you have it. Make up your mind soon, for the old 
man is as likely to go off in a couple of days as in three months." 

And letters like this are still preserved as memorials of this 
dark period: 

" Dear 



I have just got old Mr. and Mrs. insured. He is 74, and 

she is 73. Will you join me in paying assessments? If you will, 
write me immediately, and I will get the assessments fixed. The 
old lady will never go out of doors again." 

These transactions were usually traced directly to the agents 
and solicitors. There is no question as to the blame-worthi- 
ness of a large number of this class. The hideous revelations 
that were made fastened more especially upon them the stigma 
of playing with this sort of loaded dice. Nevertheless these 
miscreants were indirectly if not directly assisted and rein- 
forced by the loose practices of the home office, its easy acqui- 
escence and uninquisitiveness, and its stubborn disregard of 
the interest required to sustain a contract. If the officers and 
directors were not directly chargeable, so far as known, with 
consent or connivance in this criminal traffic, they were guilty 
of a form of thievery which ought to have condemned them 
to penal servitude. By levying excessive and fraudulent 
assessments they were enabled to coin money to an extent 
which, in some cases, is almost incredible. Speaking of the 
rings which grew rich in this way, a Lebanon newspaper cor- 
respondent said: 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 55 

" Directorship in a company of this character would not be sup- 
posed to be much more than an honorary position; but it is, in this 
neighborhood, at least. The Home Mutual Life Association, one 
of the companies which has been operated upon by the Reading and 
Pottstown ringsters, has its head offices in this place. It does not 
publish a list of its directors, and there are hundreds of its policy- 
holders who know no more concerning the identity of the parties 
who are to sit in judgment upon their risks when they have ' given 
up the ghost ' than they know about the ' man in the moon.' Such 
individuals may now learn, for the first time, that one of the direct- 
ors is Joseph Krause, who a year and a half ago purchased his seat 
from D. G. Thompson for $1,500; that another is E. D. Craull, who 
bought P. F. McCauley's place this past summer for $2,500 or there- 
abouts, and that another is Grant Weidman, who put up a similar 
sum when C. H. Killinger ceased to be a director not many months 
ago. Not much more than a year before, Killinger had bought his 
seat for from $1,200 to $1,500 from Ezekiel Wright, the present 
actuary of this corporation. It would be interesting to learn the 
circumstances which caused this position to double its value within 
the period specified. But you can't buy a seat in the Union Bene- 
ficial Mutual Aid Society, which also has its headquarters here. 
Reason why: Seats are not for sale. The last transaction of the kind 
which can be traced in connection with this corporation occurred in 
1876, when Ezekiel Wright (before mentioned) vacated his seat in 
favor of J. B. Hursh for a consideration which, so far as folks can 
remember after this lapse of time, was between $3,000 and $5,000. 
To-day no director, it is said, would give up his seat for double the 
latter amount. * How much is a seat worth, anyhow? ' I asked a 
responsible resident to-day, and the answer came: 'Put it 'at $15,000 
and you will have it near the mark.' The U. B. M. A. S. is what 
you would call a ' close ' corporation. Few of its directors die and 
none resign. They elect all the officers — save Actuary, Medical Ex- 
aminer and Solicitor — from among themselves, and they fill all vacan- 
cies caused by death; hence the Board is self-perpetual." 

But success sometimes emboldens gamesters to more des- 
perate ventures. The greed of these Pennsylvania raiders 
turned their attention to the accumulated reserves of the reg- 
ular life companies. A noteworthy example occurred in Selins- 
grove, Snyder county, where the swindlers selected a cautious 
and conservative company, the Mutual Benefit Life, of Newark, 
N. J., as presenting a larger field of operation, financially, for 
their trafific in human life. Two applications were made to 
the company for policies for $10,000 each, upon the lives of two 
residents of Snyder county. The applications were regular, 



56 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

disclosing no disqualifications, and the blanks were filled out 
by the agent and medical examiners. The company in due 
time passed upon the risks, wrote the policies, issued them, and 
received the premiums on account of them. A short time 
afterward suspicion was aroused, and the company sent, 
according to its custom, an inspector to investigate the matter. 
Imagine his surprise on finding that the persons insured were 
not only not the sound, healthy risks represented, but each of 
them of the very worst sort, with one foot already in the grave 
and the other trembling on its verge. One of the policies was 
found to be upon the life of a man in the last stages of con- 
sumption, and the other upon that of a party suffering from 
an aggravated type of kidney disease. Both were certain to 
die speedily, and the arrangements for the division of the 
$20,000 of which the company was to be defrauded, were all 
perfected. The alarming feature of the discovery was that the 
gamblers were gentlemen of high repute and physicians of 
good standing in the communit}^ The astonishment and dis- 
may that followed led to extended investigation. Case after 
case was ferreted out. In some localities it was found that 
a fierce desire for this form of speculative insurance upon the 
aged and dying had invaded all orders and conditions of 
society, until the infection rendered the public dumb to the 
enormity and the baneful and corrupting influence of a scheme 
in furtherance of which all classes — merchants, mechanics, 
farmers, professional men — held wagering policies, and frauds 
of the most outrageous character were conducted and encour- 
aged as warrantable matter of speculation. 

The authorities were strangely tardy in responding to a 
growing and earnest demand for suppression. More than two 
hundred of the " death-rattle co-operatives," as they were called, 
had actively organized for this cold-blooded and disgraceful 
traffic in human blood before the Insurance Commissioner of 
the State, the Attorney-General, and the courts commenced 
the work of extermination. Retributive blows finally drove 
the ghouls into exile, but with characteristic defiance they 
resumed their mercenar}^ operations in adjacent States. A 
chronicler of the period remarked that " the professional con- 
fidence operators, bunco men, sawdust swindlers, shovers of 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 57 

the ' queer/ and the fraternity of adventurers generally, ap- 
peared to have discovered that the assessment insurance game 
paid better than any other at the time, and to have gone, all 
over the country, into the co-operative business." They were 
most offensively demonstrative in Maryland, Ohio, and Indi- 
ana, and in Fall River and New Bedford, Mass. But sooner 
or later they were confronted with legislation outlawing them 
and imposing severe penalties; with interference of the Post- 
Office authorities with their misuse of the mails; and with 
checkmating by courts of justice. 

After a lengthened disappearance from public view, those 
who thought that the infamous scheme had disappeared forever 
were surprised to learn that there was an outbreak of the infec- 
tion in North Carolina which dated back several years. From 
the report of the preliminary trial of the tar-heel conspirators 
at Beaufort, it appears that the prisoners had conducted their 
graveyard operations successfully, year after year, without 
intervention of local magistrates or county courts. The 
defendants in the case were thirteen in number, of whom seven 
were white men and six were negroes. When the swindlers 
commenced their fraudulent operations, the conditions for suc- 
cessful adventure were favorable, but, as often happens, suc- 
cess encouraged them to widen the range of development, and 
thus to spread the net for their eventual capture and arraign- 
ment. The companies chiefly interested were such assessment 
associations as the Mutual Reserve Fund, the National of 
Hartford, the Massachusetts Benefit, the Fort Wayne, of 
Indiana, and the Old People's, of Elkhart. It appears that 
attempts were also made to defraud the Life Insurance Clear- 
ing Company, of St. Paul, and, at one time, even the Michigan 
Mutual Life. The ringleader was a desperado named C. R. 
Hassell, who acted as an agent for some of the co-operatives 
named, and in that capacity was enabled to facilitate the devilish 
work of the gang. When individual cases, one after another, 
were brought to light, and newspaper accounts of them were 
published, it looked as if some very respectable people were 
involved in the infamous transactions. It turns out, however, 
that they were a low pack, as vile and vulgar as they were • 
villainous, as despicable and debased as they were murderous. 



58 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

Hassell, who had been a horse trader, was, it was said, '* a man 
of such smooth presence, self-control, aptitude of speech and 
argument," as to deceive the very elect. What his associates 
lacked in his intellectual gifts was made up in craft and cun- 
ning. 

The cases reported were so numerous, so varied in character, 
and so ingenious in plot and execution that if they were 
detailed at length they would furnish material for the most 
interesting chapter in the history of graveyard insurance. It 
seems incredible that such a multitude of paupers could be 
insured for large sums, that so many negroes could be passed 
oi¥ as whites, that intelligent invalids and cripples could be 
insured and used for speculative purposes without knowledge 
or suspicion, and that the plainest requirements of insurable 
interest could be so long disregarded and defied. 

The discovery of these frauds was made in October, 1894. 
Col. John W. Hinsdale, a leading attorney of Raleigh, was 
employed by the companies to conduct the prosecution. He 
engaged a corps of detectives to unearth the roguery of the 
gamblers. They, in turn, enlisted on their side the machinery 
of intimidation and malediction. One of their counsel was 
editor of a newspaper, and its columns were filled with coarse 
abuse of Col. Hinsdale. Undeterred by the difficulties and 
obstacles which were constantly thrown in his pathway, the 
self-reliant attorney pressed on until success finally crowned 
his efforts. 

In August, 1895, the conspirators were bound over to court 
after a preliminary examination by a magistrate. At the Oc- 
tober term of the Carteret County Court, eleven bills were found 
against twelve of the conspirators, no one bill including them 
all. Two of the cases came to trial, but although the evidence 
was clear and convincing, the jury brought in a verdict of 
acquittal. Thereupon the Judge, who remarked that he was 
not responsible for such a miscarriage of justice, removed the 
other cases to the Trenton court, in Jones County, away from 
local influences and prejudices, and the Governor of North 
Carolina called a special term of the court for the trials. These 
•lasted nine days, and all of the defendants were convicted ex- 
cept those who pleaded guilty and those who were not pro- 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 59 

secuted in order that they might testify for the State. Among 
those convicted were the defendants who had been acquitted 
on the charges tried in the Carteret County Court. 

Aside from C. R. Hassell, the chief operators were Levi T. 
Noe, Selden D. Delamar, and J. C. Delamar. They started 
an insurance agency at Beaufort about eighteen months before 
the trial, and employed solicitors to look up very old or very 
sick people upon whose brief tenure the speculators might 
rely for speedy maturing of their ventures. The cat's paws 
were taken from the ignorant classes, who were easily duped 
by the sharpers. Dr. T. B. Delamar, the medical examiner, 
being a member of the gang, recommended the lame, the halt, 
and the blind, for acceptance as first-class risks. No matter 
how hopeless and beyond remedy, all cases were passed as 
desirable cases for insurance, without the slightest suggestion 
of disease or injury. 

By way of illustration of the character of the testimony for 
the State that was offered on the witness stand, we copy the 
following statements of Mr. J. C. Davis, a citizen of Beaufort, 
and former register of deeds for Carteret County: 

"I know Shephard Davis. He was raised on Davis Shore, but 
lives in Beaufort now, and has lived there since the war. I think he 
is in the neighborhood of eighty years old. [The application for 
$4,000 insurance states that he is fifty-six years old.] I am acquainted 
with Perry Chadwick. He was the son of a negro in our family. 
I was told that he had been in the penitentiary. The last time I saw 
him in Beaufort was perhaps a year and a half ago. He was in a 
very low state of health. His appearance as to health was very thin. 
He was a beggar. He was very weak — that is the whole of it. I 
heard ^im cough. He was a sickly looking object. I thought he 
had consumption. I know Melissa Guthrie; saw her here Saturday. 
She is in a very low state of health. I have looked upon her as a 
sickly girl all her life. I have known Samuel Windsor ever since I 
was a boy. He is in my best judgment seventy-five or eighty years 
old. I have known Mrs. Sarah M. Gabriel all her life. I have not 
seen her in two and a half years. She was at that time suffering 
with rheumatism. I think she had long been suffering with that 
trouble. I called to see her and she came in her parlor. I looked 
upon her then as a woman in bad health. She did not tell me she 
had rheumatism. She is living yet. I know ]\L'\ria Hamilton. In 
my judgment she is in the neighborhood of sixty-five or seventy 
years. I have known William Rice ever since he has been in Beau- 
fort. In 1894 [time of application for insurance in Massachusetts 
Benefit Company] he was a drinking man; drank excessively. He 



60 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

was very dissipated. I do not know of my own knowledge that he 
used any other stimulant than whisky. He had been a dissipated man 
for a number of years. He was not able to work. He is a white 
man. His dissipation ran back four or five years." 

The application for insurance stated that Rice had used 
liquors freely five years before, but not since that time, and 
that he did not use narcotics. Dr. Delamar stated in his 
medical examination that he considers the risk in every way 
a first-class one. The agents stated that he did not use liquors, 
though he had used them freely some years ago; that he was 
in every way a proper subject for insurance; and they therefore 
unqualifiedly recommended the risk. Dennis Jones corrobo- 
rated the testimony as to the age and condition of the health 
of Shep. Davis, Perry Chadwick, Samuel Windsor, Maria 
Hamilton, William Rice, Alfred Piggot, whose lives were in- 
sured in amounts varying from $2,000 to $6,000. 

The cases upon which convictions were obtained were: — 

Jacob C. Delamar and Selden D. Delamar, forgery. 

Levi T. Noe and William Fisher, forgery. 

Selden D. Delamar, forgery. 

C. R. Hassell and T. B. Delamar, false pretense. 

C R. Hassell, Albert Wigfall, Silas Blount and David Parker, 
false pretense. 

C. R. Hassell and S. W. Perkins, conspiracy. 

C. R. Hassell, David Parker, Silas Blount, Albert Wigfall and T. 
B. Delamar, conspiracy. 

W. H. Turner, Stephen B. Turner, Levi T. Noe, Selden D. Dela- 
mar and T. B. Delamar, conspiracy. 

In pronouncing judgment upon the conspirators Judge 
Graham said: ^ 

"If the evidence in these cases be true, the most stupendous crime 
ever committed in North Carolina has been unearthed. I suppose 
there is nobody that had any conception of the degree to which this 
rascality had gone. I can see how people could be drawn into this 
nefarious business of procuring or buying these policies upon these 
dying people, and people who are likely to die, but few could be inno- 
cent. In order to procure these policies, forgery, false pretenses and 
conspiracy were all committed. There has never been, within my 
knowledge, in the criminal annals of our whole country, a more 
gigantic conspiracy than this. Here we have the greatest crimes 
known except rape, murder, arson and burglary. It seems to have 
been going on for years, and it has drawn in a great many unsus- 
pecting people, and these, in order to make money, either by the 
commissions or out of the policies, have committed these crimes. 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. ei 

There has been enough forgery proven against Dr. T. B. Delamar 
to send him to the penitentiary for one hundred and fifty years, if all 
the cases for forgery were prosecuted against him and the extreme 
punishment inflicted on him in each case. 

" I regret circumstances are such that these men have not all been 
convicted of crimes for which I could impose punishment adequate to 
the ofTenses proven, many cases of forgery and false pretense being 
proven though not charged. But the crime of conspiracy is a mis- 
demeanor and punishable only by imprisonment in jail and by a fine. 
The crimes of false pretenses and forgery are both felonies and can 
be punished by imprisonment in the penitentiary, and though I 
regret the same punishment cannot be meted out to all the defend- 
ants alike in these cases, still when this conspiracy is proven, when 
false pretenses are proven, when forgery is proven to have been com- 
mitted, then I must discharge my duty in each one of the cases under 
the law of North Carolina as I find it laid down in our statute books. 

'"' It has been proven that these men, Levi T. Noe, J. C. Delamar 
and Selden D. Delamar were agents doing this fraudulent business; 
that Dr. T. B. Delamar was their medical exam.iner; that David 
Parker and William Fisher were their henchmen and went out and 
got the names of those people who were in the last stages of disease, 
as Parker said, " would die soon," in order, as one of the witnesses 
said, " they might make a little quick money." 

" In the case of C. R. Hassell, if the evidence is to be believed, he 
is the arch conspirator of the whole lot. He seems to have been 
engaged in this business for years, and his success for a time seems 
to have induced others to go into it. Then Noe took it up and after 
pursuing it for a year he takes the Delamars in with him. They are 
all induced by the success with which he has met to engage in this 
disreputable business. 

" Then Bill Fisher comes in and forged the name of Florence 
Chadwick and others, and David Parker also appears as an agent 
and one of the conspirators. Their particular conspiracy was to de- 
fraud in probably 25 cases by the use of the names of a large num- 
ber of people who were in the last stages of disease, many of whom 
were produced before the jury by the State. 

" As much as I sympathize with the families of these defendants in 
the misfortunes that have overtaken them, as much as I regret the 
disgrace that will have to attach to them the balance of their days, 
and as hard as it is for me to pronounce sentences in cases of this 
kind — for this is the hardest part of a Judge's life — I am bound to 
do my duty. The judgment of the court is that C. R. Hassell be 
confined in the State penitentiary at hard labor seven years: that 
Bill Fisher be confined in the penitentiary at hard labor five years; 
that Selden D. Delamar, T. B. Delamar, J. C. Delamar and Levi 
T. Noe be confined in the common jail of Craven County for a term 
of two years, and pay a fine of three hundred dollars each, that being 
the limit of imprisonment allowed by law." 



62 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

THE BELFAST SCANDAL. 

In the early part of the year 1888, the London office of the 
Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States received 
intimations of " crookedness " in the conduct of the agency in 
Belfast, which called for prompt interference and stern correc- 
tion. Thereupon, the then secretary, now manager of the 
London branch, Mr. Alexander Munkittrick, proceeded to 
Belfast, and with the aid of personal friends and acquaintances, 
succeeded in unmasking a plot to defraud the Equitable out of 
many thousand pounds. The conspirators were Chestnutte 
Smythe, the general agent; James Speers Orr, a sub-agent; Dr. 
James Camac Smythe, medical examiner and brother of Chest- 
nutte; Robert Dunlop, Hugh Knox Matthews, and William 
Press, respectable citizens of Belfast. Their plan of procedure 
was modeled on the Pennsylvania graveyard system, with all 
of its recklessness, and as little pretence of insurable interest. 
To that system they tacked improvements of their own, which 
were correspondingly dangerous to society. They were men 
of excellent standing in social and business life, in religious 
association and club connection; they were altogether beyond 
suspicion of the practice of insuring other people without their 
knowledge or consent; they were well equipped for a successful 
campaign of villainy, and they had a large and liberal company 
on the other side of the Atlantic to deal with, instead of de- 
pending on the fluctuations of the hat-passing style of collec- 
tion. Their plans were so well contrived that if a cat's-paw 
known as " Black Joe," a negro who had been insured as an 
Irishman, had not shuffled ofl his coil prematurely, and paved 
the way to detection, they would eventually have swindled 
the Equitable out of a large amount, the policies representing 
which were recovered. Recovery was easy, because the policies 
were void. They had been obtained through forged signatures 
to the proposals, and forged medical certificates. Several re- 
spectable citizens had been insured in this way without their 
knowledge, and the policies were assigned by the conspirators 
to themselves as beneficiaries. In other cases, selected from the 
worthless classes, consent was obtained and assignment made 
for a trifling consideration. 

Arrest followed in the first week in May, with a lengthy pre- 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 63 

liminary hearing in the Recorder's Court before Colonel the 
Hon. W. F. Forbes, R. M. There was a great deal of discred- 
itable sparring between the counsel for the prosecution and 
the counsel for the accused. Of the latter, the counsel for 
Dunlop, Mr. O'Shaughnessy, was conspicuously vicious and 
vulgar in his abuse of the Equitable and its management. How 
much of an impression was made on Colonel Forbes by this 
unwarrantable form of digression was seen when he expressed 
his readiness to remand the prisoners for trial. The bail for 
Dunlop, the wealthy grocer and town councillor, was fixed at 
£12,000, while in the other cases it was comparatively light, 
and Dr. Smythe was allowed to go on his own recognizance. 

To insure fairness and freedom from local partiality and 
prejudice, the trial was transferred to the Wicklow Assizes, 
and fixed for the closing days of July. The six prisoners, to 
quote the language of the indictment of the Grand Jury, " did 
wickedly, designedly and feloniously combine, conspire, con- 
federate and agree together, by divers false pretences and subtle 
means and devices, to obtain and acquire to themselves from 
the Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, 
large sums of money, against the peace and dignity of our 
lady the Queen." The prosecution of these scoundrels, orig- 
inally in the hands of the counsel for the Equitable, had been 
assumed exclusively by the counsel for the Crown, and the 
Attorney-General was ready to proceed with the case with a 
large array of witnesses, who had been brought from distant 
points at considerable expense and great inconvenience. Those 
who were familiar with the testimony to be offered confidently 
expected speedy conviction and commensurate punishment. 

To the surprise of all, the trial collapsed through discovery 
of an informality. The counsel for the traversers challenged 
the array of special jurors under the Crimes Act, on the ground 
that the panel had not been properly summoned in rotation 
of the names on the jury book as provided by the Act. It 
appeared that the Sheriff, in preparing the panel, had sum- 
moned 48 special jurors for the trial of civil cases only, and 
had also summoned a panel of 200 jurors under the Criminal 
Law Amendment Act for the trial of the prisoners. After a 
day's skirmishing between opposing counsel, Justice O'Brien 



64 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

expressed the opinion that the panel had been irregularly and 
illegally summoned, and upon the request of the Attorney- 
General he made an order quashing the panel, directing the 
Sheriff to return a new panel pursuant to the statute, and 
adjourning the Court to August i6. Thereupon a special 
juror made a strong appeal to the Justice against the date 
selected, on the ground that it would be the middle of the 
harvest season, and enforced absence would cause very great 
loss. His lordship sympathetically assented, and the date of 
adjournment was eventually fixed for the 15th of October. 

It was a matter for profound regret that after the machinery 
of the law had been set in motion with such care and precision, 
it was abruptly stopped by one of those quiddities which, ^ 
however sufficient and satisfying to the legal mind, provoke 
impatience on the part of those who cannot reconcile the 
uncouth forms and the antiquated adjuncts which cling like 
mould to modern jurisprudence, with verities which are obvious, 
and with even-handed justice whose demands are unquestion- 
able. In view of the extent of the disclosures of the Belfast 
crimes, and of the urgent need of making in a short, sharp, 
and decisive way a memorable example of such transgression, 
the sacrifice of substance to shadow was all the more vexa- 
tious and disappointing when contrasted with the usual prompti- 
tude in disposing of British criminal cases. 

The trial of the conspirators at the Wicklow Assizes, before 
Justice O'Brien, commenced on the 20th of October, 1888, 
and terminated on the 27th. The Justice, who appears to have 
been of a humorous turn, of which he gave several indications 
during the proceedings, remarked, while Mr. Munkittrick was 
under cross-examination: "We have had a very large exper- 
ience of American insurance in this country, and they have 
had a very large experience of us." In this little off-hand 
pleasantry there was probably more length and breadth than 
his lordship was aware of. Shakespeare was right when he 
said, " More water glideth by the mill than wots the miller of." 

The first two conspirators placed on trial were Robert Dun- 
lop and James Speers Orr. They were indicted on the charge of 
feloniously altering a certificate of the death of Joseph M. Wil- 
son, otherwise known as Black Joe, by inserting a false entry 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 65 

representing the duration of Wilson's illness as one month 
instead of two months. This colored tramp was insured as an 
Irishman for £2,000 (annual premium £96 i6s. 8d.), for Dunlop's 
benefit, without insurable interest, November 2, 1887. Dr. 
Smythe, brother of Chestnutte Smythe, and one of the con- 
spirators, pronounced a mere wreck a first-class life. Wilson 
died December 20, of heart disease and dropsy, a complication 
of maladies of long standing. Fearing exposure through such 
a suspiciously sudden death, the conspirators changed the certi- 
ficate accompanying the proofs of death so as to bring the 
period of illness within the period of insurance. Orr, who was 
the instrument of Dunlop in the execution of his rascally 
designs, was the ready and capable forger. 

Dunlop's solicitor, Mr. Walker, tried to make it appear that 
he was the dupe and tool of Orr, who was engaged in fraudu- 
lent transactions against the company of which he was an 
agent in the morning, and in lecturing on temperance in the 
evening. It was easily shown, however, that the impecunious 
Orr, who had a large family, was in debt to the rich grocer, and 
to that extent in his power, and obliged to serve him, and to 
facilitate his schemes for further enrichment. If he deceived 
Dunlop at all, it was in the single statement that " insurable 
interest is not required by American law." Serjeant Hemphill, 
for the Crown, said : " The action of both prisoners in the case 
went to prove their moral depravity, for they both joined in 
the same crime, and now each one sought to throw the whole 
responsibility of the violation of the law on the other." He 
believed it would "require golden scales to weigh the com- 
parative degree of depravity and immorality between the two 
prisoners." 

Orr made a full confession of his guilty transactions through 
his solicitor, Mr. Young. He pleaded guilty to a charge of 
misdemeanor only, and not to the more serious charge of 
felony. Referring to these admissions at the close of a lengthy 
charge to the jury, Mr. Justice O'Brien said, first addressing 
himself to Orr, and afterward to Dunlop : 

" It is, undoubtedly, a very great offense against the law, and not 
merely an offense against the law, but an offense committed by you 
in pursuance of and in aid of a vast conspiracy of fraud, and it is 



66 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

further a violation of the duty that you owed to your own employers, 
as well as a duty you owed to the law of the country. I still recog- 
nize in your station and in your position as an humble man that you 
were to some extent dependent for pecuniary aid upon Robert Dun- 
lop, and I recognize some ground of distinction between the cases 
of each of you. And you, Robert Dunlop, if you were cast down 
from a high station, from the reputation of an honest man of great 
wealth — I am told even colossal wealth — it was by your own act in 
violating the law. There was no other conclusion for the jury to 
come to than that you were guilty, and you were in the higher station 
and of greater wealth, and I believe you to be the more guilty. Your 
sentence is nine months' imprisonment with hard labor, and you, 
Speers Orr, are sentenced to six months' imprisonment with hard 
labor.'* 

The extreme lightness of these sentences was in broad con- 
trast with the measure of expectation. Those who were more 
or less familiar with the testimony to be given, and the con- 
fessions to be made, expected a term of at least fifteen years 
imprisonment as the appropriate penalty. The judge himself, 
in speaking of the uttering of the false statement in the certi- 
ficate, in the course of his extended review of the evidence 
before the jury, said: "It is hardly necessary to state to you 
that the person who does any criminal or other act by the 
hand of another does it himself, and it makes no kind of differ- 
ence in the legal contemplation whether the person who altered 
the certificate was Orr or Dunlop, if Dunlop was a party to it. 
The ofifense charged is one of great gravity, for though you 
might consider that the alteration of a document might be 
trifling, still you must have regard to the circumstance that 
the Legislature, in enacting the law, determined that under 
certain circumstances the person convicted of violation might 
be sentenced to penal servitude for life." 

In an editorial comment upon the sentence, a leading insur- 
ance journal of England, the Review, said: 

" When the tones of his lordship's voice died away, a look of 
astonishment, bordering on incredulity, crept into every face, and 
none appeared more surprised than the jury themselves. The lightness 
of the sentences became the subject of general remark. Certainly 
they were altogether different from what was expected. It is difficult 
to say what view Mr. Justice O'Brien took of the affair. Probably 
he thought, for men occupying the positions which the prisoners 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 67 

held, nine months and six months respectively of picking oakum, the 
plank bed and all the other accessories of hard labor in a county jail, 
besides the disgrace of the thing, he was making the punishment fit 
the crime in every respect. Be that as it may, public opinion is alto- 
gether at variance with his lordship's decision." 

The Dublin Daily Express, which echoed the general feehng, 
said : " We believe that the public, who have read the accounts 
of the frauds, and reflected upon the circumstances and the 
position of the prisoners, will be disposed to think that justice 
has been very inadequately vindicated by sentences which fall 
so far short of what the law affords for such criminality." 
Other Irish and English journals showed a consensus of 
opinion as to an inadequacy of punishment totally irreconcil- 
able with the facts and the demands of justice. 

An effort was made by Dunlop's counsel, Mr. O'Shaugh- 
nessy, to entrap a witness into severe reflection upon the man- 
agement of the Equitable Life, and to convert into the appear- 
ance of settled conviction a hastily formed conclusion as to the 
home management, which was corrected upon proper represen- 
tation of the facts. The judge promptly and. vigorously re- 
buked the offender. Said he : "I cannot allow the company 
to be attacked. The prosecution is being conducted by the 
Attorney-General for the Crown, and not for the insurance 
company." It was not the Equitable that was on trial; it was 
its assailants, its worst enemies, a gang of thieves who, if they 
had been undetected in their audacious rascality, would have 
plundered its treasury of a large amount of money. 

On the 24th, the case of Hugh Knox Matthews and Wil- 
liam Press, in which Chestnutte Smythe was implicated, was 
called up. At the time first set for the trial, nearly three months 
before, it was known to a few persons that Smythe was ready 
to turn informer, and, to save his own neck, reveal the story 
of the drama in which he enacted the part of the big villain. 
On the present occasion it was generally understood that he 
would be accepted as Queen's evidence. After a lengthy and 
detailed recital of the tricks and devices to which he and the 
gang combined with him resorted, in order, as the indictment 
said, " to obtain from the Equitable Life Assurance Society of 
the United States large sums of money, the property of the 



68 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

said Society," the following colloquy occurred on cross-exam- 
ination : 

Q. Were you secretary of a religious association? 

A. I was connected with various religious associations. 

Q. And I suppose you are trained in these societies in religion, 
virtue, and morality? 

A. I suppose so. 

Q. Were you secretary of a religious society? 

A. Now don't be smiling; there is nothmg to smile about. I was 
secretary of the Congregational Association, etc. 

The informer is always an object of distrust and disgust, and 
Smythe's case was no exception. Matthews and Press were 
condemned to nine months' imprisonment with hard labor. 
While they, with Dunlop, Orr, and Dr. Smythe, were breaking 
stone in the prison yard at Belfast, Chestnutte Smythe, the 
biggest rascal of the gang, secured his liberty by turning 
Queen's evidence and escaping to America. 

People in general, and the press in particular, look at pass- 
ing events through lenses of dififering refractive power. Here 
is the Dublin Freeman's Journal, for instance, which looked 
through political spectacles at Smythe's irregularities. It said: 

" The next sensational pamphlet may well be one bearing the title, 
' Unionists and Crime.' Mr. Chestnutte Smythe, the gentleman from 
Belfast who confessed on Tuesday in the witness-box at Wicklow 
as an informer against his confederates, that he had committed for- 
gery upon forger}^, that he had reduced forgery to a system, that he 
had forged Mr. Finlay M'Cance's name and Mr. Matier's name, and 
that in fact he did not know how many forgeries he had been guilty 
of, and all for purposes of fraud — was the appointed secretary of the 
Liberal Unionist Association, under whose auspices the Marquis of 
Hartington, Mr. Chamberlain, and other lights of the Unionist 
Party have been invited, received, entertained, and feted in ' loyal ' 
Belfast. In fact, Mr. Chestnutte Smythe was the Liberal Unionists' 
right-hand man." 

On the other hand, the Belfast Evening Telegraph dealt with 
the wretched business from the view point of the moralist. 
Remembering Chestnutte Smythe's prominence in the work of 
the Young Men's Christian Association, and his high standing 
in the Church and the Sunday School, it thus pronounced 
judgment: 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 89 

" The disclosures he made, as far as he himself is concerned — and 
we deal only with those — are sorrowful in the extreme. He con- 
fessed to wholesale forgery. He had been a Christian professor. 
His evidence merely shows how mere profession is to be distrusted, 
and how solid worth should be sought rather than the mere tinsel of 
hypocrisy. We speak of this unfortunate gentleman more in sorrow 
than in anger. He was beset by many temptations. Suddenly 
thrown from a sphere in which he had the protection of Christian 
friends, into the maelstrom of the world, of whose treacherous waters 
he knew nothing, he fell an easy prey. His confessions are as pain- 
ful as they could well nigh be, and it is to be hoped that he is an 
exception to those who have received so excellent a training and yet 
are failing in the moral sense which judges between right and 
wrong." 

Among the citizens of Belfast who were insured by the 
rascals on a forged proposal, and forged medical certificate, 
without consent or knowledge, was Mr. Finlay McCance, man- 
ager of the Ulster Spinning Company. Mr. McCance was one 
of the numerous witnesses on the stand, and he testified that 
he knew Matthews slightly, but did not know Press, that 
neither had any insurable interest in his life, and that he had 
no knowledge of a policy for £5,000 taken out on his life until 
these proceedings commenced. When his testimony closed he 
turned to the Justice and said: "I would like to learn from 
your lordship on what ground Mr. Henderson holds on to a 
policy on my life which was obtained by fraud, and which gives 
him an interest in my death." This gave his Honor an oppor- 
tunity for one of his jocosities. He replied^: " Mr. McCance, 
when you have joined the majority, which I hope will not be 
for a distant time from the present, I will then be in position 
to answer your question, and you will then be able to under- 
stand all about it." 

The judge's charge to the jury in the case of Matthews and 
Press was lengthy — about three hours — but, as Horace Greeley 
would have said, "it is mighty interesting reading." It was 
enlivened by flashes of characteristic jocularity. For instance, 
in speaking of the great activity in the life insurance work, 
he said, "The flush of the insurance business in the year 1887 
in the town of Belfast, almost bore some analogy to the spread- 
ing of scarlatina." And a little further on he said, " These 
transatlantic [American] companies appeared to regard Ireland 



70 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

as a kind of Golconda mine, and they seemed sometimes to go 
out to gather wool and come back shorn." 

In reviewing the cases selected by the gamblers for speedy 
realization on their investment, such as that of Coulson, suffer- 
ing from attacks of delirium tremens as the result of excessive 
drinking, together with ulcerated legs, or that of Jackson, with 
threatening consumption and other maladies, the judge vig- 
orously denounced the offense with which the prisoners were 
charged. He characterized the act, on the part of one or 
more individuals, of presenting a bad life to an insurance com- 
pany, as flagrantly dishonest and criminal. He had his own 
opinion, and doubtless the jury had theirs, as to the conduct 
and the moral condition of the men who could coolly watch a 
Hfe on which they were speculating, rapidly descending by vice, 
like Coulson, into a dishonorable grave. 

On this last point, Serjeant Hemphill, counsel for the Crown, 
had said in his address to the jury: 

" A great deal has been said about insurable interest. What did 
the jury suppose Matthews or Press embarked in this traffic in insur- 
ance for? Why did they not stick to their ordinary legitimate busi- 
ness pursuits? Could they believe that these men were so innocent as 
not to know they had no right to gamble in human life? An act of 
Parliament was passed over a hundred years ago in England to put 
a stop to the terrible results ensuing from this form of gambling, and 
the law was subsequently extended to this country [Ireland]. It was 
a horrible reflection, no matter in what light the transactions in 
Belfast appeared, it was a horrible idea to be sitting at the same 
table with a man on whose life they had an insurance in their pockets, 
watching with interest every bit he ate and every sup he drank, to 
see how far it might shorten the term of his existence." 

The last case to be disposed of was that of the medical 
examiner, Dr. James Camac Smythe. The evidence of his 
active participation in the conspiracy was brief but conclusive. 
In the course of a comprehensive summary. Justice O'Brien, 
turning to the prisoner, used the following forcible language: 

" If you had not been guilty of this oflfense, no other person could 
have been found guilty. The crime could not have been committed 
without your concurrence. You were placed in a position of great 
trust by the insurance company; you were expected to perform your 
duty, to represent truth and right. You betrayed your trust, and you 
are morally responsible for the fact that four persons are now 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 71 

imprisoned under the degradation and punishment of a sentence, 
which, if you had done your duty, would have been averted." 

Dr. Smythe was sentenced to six months' imprisonment, 
a small matter in itself compared with his professional and 
social ruin. 

The following extract from the Dublin Daily Express will 
serve as a specimen of the newspaper comments of the time 
(October, 1888): 

" After a trial which occupied the court for four days, the prisoners, 
Matthews and Press, who were indicted for conspiracy to defraud the 
Equitable Insurance Company, were found guilty and sentenced to 
penal servitude, it may be thought, or at least two years' impris- 
onment. No, but to nine months' imprisonment with hard labor! 
We venture to say that the punishment will excite as much astonish- 
~ment from its lightness as did the frauds themselves by their enormity. 
Many and inscrutable are the mysteries of the law, but its proverbial 
uncertainty is surpassed in this sentence. The frauds which have 
been revealed in this case were not absolutely novel in their main 
features, but their magnitude and turpitude were greater than any 
which have been brought to light within living memory in Ireland; 
and, having regard to the position of the swindlers who were engaged 
in them, and the circumstances under which they were committed, we 
think it would be hard to find a parallel for them. It was not the 
case of a set of desperate adventurers who had to live by their wits, 
and were under the pressure of want without any regular employ- 
ment or means of earning an honest living. The prisoners who were 
convicted on Saturday occupied respectable positions as traders in 
Belfast, and one 'of them is possessed of considerable property. . . , 
Smythe and Orr, as well as Matthews and Press, set to work to 
obtain every bad life which could be found in the city, in order to 
insure them. A wretched oyster-man was insured for £2,000. A 
clerk of the markets who was dismissed for intemperate habits and 
neglect of duty was insured for £5,000, and Matthews hoped to bring 
the insurance up to £20,000. A respectable merchant of the city hap- 
pened to take ill and had to go abroad. This was a chance for the 
swindlers, and accordingly an application and medical certificate were 
forged and a policy for £5,000 obtained in his name, but when he 
returned in good health the enterprising Matthews broke off the bar- 
gain. It would not do to insure such a life, and the policy was 
transferred to another. Some of the insured persons died in a short 
time, but the frauds having been discovered, no claim was made by 
the holders of the policies, and, .on the contrary, policies to the 
amount of £16,000, on which over £500 had been paid as premiums. 
were surrendered without any compensation. So widely ramified 



72 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

and heinous a system of fraud has not been discovered for many 
years. The public were shocked at the revelations, and expected 
that after an imposing trial at the special assizes, which seemed to 
indicate that the Crown attached great importance to the vindication 
of the law in such a case, such a punishment would be inflicted upon 
them as would deter others from committing a similar crime. But 
oh! most lame and impotent conclusion; a sentence of nine months' 
imprisonment will, it is to be feared, rather encourage other adven- 
turers to speculate in the same way." 

The tendency to make political capital out of such a miscar- 
riage of justice was nowhere more notable than in that Home 
Rule journal, the Dublin Star, the paper of a very lively mem- 
ber of Parliament, Mr. T. P. O'Connor. In connection with 
the case the following breezy editorial is worth preserving: — 

" It sometimes seems a pity that there is no method of overhauling 
the conduct of judges. Enthroned in a position almost of omnipo- 
tence, these gentlemen are able often to overthrow the law they were 
intended to administer, and as in the recent outburst of Mr. Justice 
Grantham, to violate all the decencies of life and all the conventions 
of fair play. The House of Commons remains as the great court of 
appeal for all the nation; though whenever an inconvenient inquiry 
is raised, the minister is always ready to get up and declare the 
incompetence of the House to discuss the decisions of courts. 
Nevertheless we sincerely hope that attention will be called to the 
scandalous conduct of Mr. Justice O'Brien in reference to what are 
known as the great insurance frauds. 

This whole story is one of the mo3t startling in all criminal 
history. A number of men in Belfast conspired to rob the Equitable 
Life Assurance Society of New York. The plan was to hunt up some 
poor devil who was drinking himself quickly to death, or who was 
already in the last stage of disease, to forge an application without 
his knowledge for an insurance, then to forge the certificate of the 
doctor; and when the tippler or the consumptive came to his early 
end, to pocket the policy. The conspiracy was gigantic and wide- 
spread in its operations. Not satisfied with Belfast, it went through 
the whole county of Antrim, until the policies taken out reached the 
enormous figure of £40,000. At last, through some accident, a clue 
was given; it was followed up and this tremendous network of fraud 
was unravelled. The discovery of the kind of persons involved was 
as astounding as the gigantic nature of the operation; for at the 
head and front of this vile plot were men of great wealth, of con- 
spicuous piety, and, without exception, they were pillars of the loy- 
alist party. Mr, Chestnutte Smythe, who was the leading figure in 
the conspiracy, was secretary of the Reception Committtee that wel- 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 73 

corned Mr. Chamberlain; and doubtless was in the mind of that 
renegade when he was pointing to the contrast between the poverty 
and dishonesty of the Southern Nationalist and the sturdy honesty 
and stable prosperity of the Northern Loyalist. The name of Mr. 
James Henderson, the proprietor of the Belfast News Letter — the chief 
organ in Ulster of the Orange party — has been mentioned in a way 
and with a frequency that suggests that either he ought to be in the 
dock or somebody else ought to be the defendant in an action for 
libel. Mr. Dunlop, another of the foremost conspirators, is reported 
to be a man worth £80,000; and several others of the swindlers are 
also men of large means. The guilt was brought clearly home, for 
Mr. Chestnutte Smyth — the companion and patron of Mr. Chamber- 
lain — was admitted as informer, and revealed the whole story. And 
now comes the most scandalous feature of the whole business. If 
there were ever a pack of ruffians that deserve to be sent to a pro- 
longed period of penal servitude, they were the men engaged in this 
conspiracy. They had not the temptation of poverty; they acted from 
pure, unadulterated, wicked greediness. Some years ago a few Amer- 
icans — men of desperate fortunes and clamant needs — entered into a 
conspiracy to rob the Bank of England. They were all sentenced 
to penal servitude either for 20 years or for life, and only one — so 
far as we know — has ever been released: and he was a broken man. 
If these men, being Irishmen, had also been Nationalists, they would 
have fared as ill. The same judge who tried them sent a few years 
ago an unfortunate young bank clerk, who stole under the influence 
of bad, dissolute companions, to seven years' penal servitude. What 
think you was the sentence of Dunlop — the scoundrel with £80,000, 
who grasped at more and robbed and forged to obtain it? Just nine 
months! One of the other conspirators got ofif with six months; 
and Mr. Chestnutte Smyth, the friend of Mr. Chamberlain — having 
played the Judas part one would expect from his alliances — escaped 
scot free. This scandalous result has proved too much even for the 
Daily Express, whose friends and supporters were implicated. The 
frauds it rightly declares " of a magnitude and a turpitude greater 
than any which has been brought to light within living memory in 
Ireland"; and it adds that "a sentence of nine months' imprison- 
ment will, it is to be feared, rather encourage other adventurers to 
speculate in the same way." To make this part of the story com- 
plete, we should add that Mr. Justice O'Brien, whom all the journal- 
ism of Ireland — with the exception of the Belfast News Letter, Mr. 
Henderson's paper— have united in denouncing, is an intimate friend 
of Mr. Wilson, the chief calumniator of the Times, and is credited in 
Ireland with some share in the production of the articles which, 
being under judicial investigation, we cannot now adequately de- 
scribe. 
Two or three things finally must be said as to this case. We have 



74 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

no desire whatever to make all Belfast responsible for the villainies 
which have at last been exposed, although the judge did make the 
significant remark that all Belfast seemed to be more or less con- 
cerned in the fraud. But it is permissible to observe that if a whole- 
sale fraud had been exposed in which Nationalists were the guilty- 
parties, as extensive as that which has just been revealed in Belfast, 
it would have been utilized on every Unionist platform in England 
as a final and convincing argument against Home Rule. In the 
absence of any such bonne bouche, the loyal inhabitants of Belfast 
are still represented as too loyal, too honest, too virtuous, too law- 
abiding to be put under the foot of a dishonest, immoral, disloyal 
Parnellite Parliament in Dublin. Have we not in the face of such 
disclosures heard enough of those eulogies of the north of Ireland at 
the expense of the rest of the country? And finally, one of the great 
arguments on which the Unionists support Coercion, is the impossi- 
bility of getting verdicts even when the guilt of the accused is 
palpable. We defy any Unionist to point to a single case in which 
a Nationalist jury has refused to convict a swindler such as any one 
of those concerned in the great Equitable fraud. But so much were 
the Crown afraid of the loyal, and the law-abiding, and the moral, 
and the honest, and the virtuous, and the Unionist jurors of Belfast, 
that they transferred this case to the Wicklow Assizes — assizes held 
in another county and in another province. The less we hear of 
loyalist Belfast in the future the better." 

THE BLACKBURN GAMBLERS. 

Nearly three years after the nefarious transactions in Belfast, 
a concerted purpose to revive them on a larger scale, and with 
even greater audacity, was discovered in Blackburn, a Lanca- 
shire town. Mr. Bain, the editor of the Belfast Insurance and 
Financial Gazette, who was one of the prime movers in unearth- 
ing the memorable conspiracy in his own city, was largely 
instrumental in exposing the Blackburn copyists. He pub- 
lished a list of cases (September, 1890), the record of which 
came into his possession, and his comments upon them, some 
of which we subjoin, are amusing. 

In the proposal forms one of the lives referred to was de- 
scribed as a coal dealer, and very naturally the companies with 
whom the assurances were effected assumed that a man carry- 
ing £1,900 of assurance was in a good way of business. The 
description was literally true, but who would have dreamed that 
the coal dealer insured for £1,900 was a hawker of odd bags of 
coal, and to all intents and purposes a pauper? 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 75 

The gentleman insured for £4,000 was described as an under- 
taker and coach proprietor, his only claim to such designations 
arising from the circumstance that he was employed in an 
undertaker's yard in the capacity of a cab washer and a stable 
assistant. 

The magnate of Blackburn, upon whose life the assurance 
companies were interested to the extent of £9,000, was intro- 
duced to their notice as a poultry salesman, but how this occu- 
pation was selected, unless simply at random, it is impossible to 
say, unless that in his actual vocation of a loiterer about the 
market he was of service in watching that the poultry did not 
escape. He was aware of the fact that death would materially 
increase his commercial value, but so long as his income of 
odd shillings was enhanced by fees for signing insurance papers 
" he did not care how long the thing went on." 

To put it plainly, the man carrying £3,880 of insurance is a 
pauper, but the fact that he hawked " churchwardens " in a 
basket, when he could raise sufficient coppers to purchase a 
stock, suggested the idea that his proposal would be acceptable 
when he assumed the role of a pipe manufacturer. When trade 
is depressed, or his funds are at a low ebb, this life, insured 
for thousands, takes refuge in the workhouse, but his extreme 
poverty and misery, instead of exciting sympathy and com- 
passion, created a desire to coin money on his deathbed. 

Next in order comes a builder and contractor, who, as his 
own worst enemy, presented admirable features for speculative 
insurance, which were rather enhanced in value than otherwise 
by the secret knowledge of the Blackburn gamblers— and 
which for obvious reasons was concealed from the companies — 
that the unfortunate man was in reality a steeplejack. No 
doubt it was aggravating to the gentleman who owned the 
policies that, when in a suitable condition of mind and body 
for transforming the policies into cash orders, the builder and 
contractor was not permitted to ascend and sweep chimney 
stacks, although to persons of a different constitution it would 
be a comfort to know that. as a consequence blood did not lie 
at their threshold. 

A laborer and a working tailor are two other subjects from 
whose deaths handsome profits might have been realized. It is 



76 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE; 

scarcely necessary to say that all these unfortunate creatures 
are the victims of intemperate habits, but it is dreadful to have 
to add that there is good reason to believe that every facility 
was being afforded to some of them, by the owners of the 
policies, for indulging in their craving for drink. Insuring 
men's lives with the knowledge that they were drunkards, and 
subsequently supplying them with drink, is an outrage which 
could only reflect credit upon the ingenuity and rapacity of a 
heathen community. 

A DONATION PARTY, AND WHAT CAME OF IT. 

The rector of an Episcopal church in a thriving town in the 
West had a donation party early in the month of January, 1866, 
and divers good gifts fell to his portion upon that occasion. 
The wishes for a happy new year were not conventional or 
empty-sounding, but were pronounced with an emphasis full of 
substantial meaning. With the replenishment of his scanty 
purse, the good rector's heart was full of love toward all his 
parishioners. More than that, parish boundaries did not limit 
the overflow of his benevolent feelings, and thus he bethought 
himself of Brother Farrand, a resident Presbyterian clergyman, 
who, poor fellow, had sustained a severe accidental injury to his 
hip and spine the November previous, and who was now barely 
able to limp around upon crutches. To think was to act, with 

our worthy rector, and he immediately sought out Dr. , 

who was present at the party, and consulted him as to the 
probabilities and possibilities of Brother F.'s recovery. The 
doctor was prepared to say at once that, in his opinion, Brother 
F. had sustained such injuries as would cause his death ulti- 
mately; possibly he might live for many months, or long 
enough to die from other causes, but in any event he was at 
all times liable to accidental aggravation of his injuries, such 
as surely would carry him of¥. 

The rector had been revolving in his mind a course that 
seemed to be advantageous, and his reflections assumed still 
greater importance upon learning the doctor's prognostications. 
It had occurred to him that Brother Farrand should be insured, 
and that without further delay; and he concluded to pay the 
required premium out of the proceeds of his donation party. 



SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 77 

The doctor suggested that Brother Farrand was scarcely in con- 
dition to undergo a favorable medical examination for a life 
policy of insurance. The rector replied that he understood 
that perfectly well; an ordinary life policy, of course, was out 
of the question, but would not an accident policy answer the 
purpose? Had not Brother Farrand met with an accident — a 
serious, and ultimately fatal accident? Was it not for such as 
he that an accident insurance policy would be of special value? 
He would ask Mr. M., who was present at the party, and whom 
they both well knew as a worthy and wealthy member of the 
rector's flock. He knew that M. held the agency of an acci- 
dent insurance company, and furthermore he had seen it 
advertised in his paper that for such insurance there was " no 
medical examination required." Surely, if ever there was a 
case in which no medical examination was required or even 
compatible with insurance, it must be that of Brother Farrand. 

Notwithstanding the cheer and chatter, the interruptions and 
the gayeties of the occasion, the rector, the doctor, and the agent 
were soon in conference, and engaged in the consideration of 
the proposition suggested by the rector. It was speedily de- 
termined that an insurance policy might issue properly against 
subsequent injury, and it was then and there decided that such 
a policy should be written. The rector was a man of prompt 
action, and he at once announced his willingness and his de- 
termination to pay the premium, and directed agent M. to 
write a policy in the principal sum of $5,000 for the benefit of 
Brother F.'s wife. The agent was more dilatory in his action, 
however, and it was not until after poor, unfortunate Brother 
Farrand had sustained a second fall and injury that the policy 
was finally written and delivered, though dated back to Febru- 
ary 1st. The later accident and injury occurred February 19th, 
several weeks subsequent to the donation p^rty. 

As was fully expected at the time of writing the policy, death 
soon terminated the sufiferings of Brother F., and the policy be- 
came a claim for $5,000. Affirmative proofs of death, in sup- 
port of the claim, were duly prepared and forwarded to the 
Travelers Insurance Company, wherein it was fully set forth 
how and whereby the injury of February 19th was the proxi- 
mate and sole cause of death. 



78 SPECULATIVE INSURANCE. 

This little scheme occurred during the early history of acci- 
dent insurance in this country, and as the parties presenting the 
claim were of that high-toned respectability which ought to 
carry unchallenged honesty along with it, the company saw no 
reason to question its validity. The sum insured was promptly 
paid by the company by means of a check for $5,000 to the 
order of Mrs. Farrand, the beneficiary named in the policy, 
which was forwarded through the hands of agent M., who was 
instructed to deliver the check and obtain the usual discharge 
of the policy and claim. Then commenced a little game, an 
inkling of which coming to the knowledge of the company 
several months afterward, an investigation was set on foot 
which soon unearthed the whole matter. 

It appeared that although agent M. did not concoct the 
scheme, he was well aware that he was a party to the fraud 
from the first; and as he intended and tried to swindle Mrs. 
Farrand, the widow, out of a part of the insurance money after 
he got possession of it, his motive was apparent. Of the pro- 
ceeds of the $5,000 check which Mrs. F. intrusted him to col- 
lect for her, she received : 

In cash $ 90 

Notes and Mortgages 2,000 

do. do, (of doubtful value) 2,000 

County bond 200 

Total $4,290 

Agent M. soon found himself in unpleasant business relations 
with his company, together with a criminal prosecution staring 
him in the face. No escape was open to him save through full, 
complete restitution to the company he had defrauded, and this 
he was able to m.ake, and did make. The entire sum was 
refunded by him to the company, together with a sufficient 
amount in addition thereto to defray all costs, expenditures, 
and outlays of every description which the company had in- 
curred in consequence of this conspiracy to defraud its treasury. 
Moreover, he could not go into a court of law or equity against 
the widow, and exhibit clean hands, therefore he could not 
recover any portion of the sum he had paid her, and he did 
not attempt it. He professed sincere penitence, and promised 
thereafter to lead a life of honesty. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 79 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

INFERENCES AND PRESUMPTIONS OF DEATH ; UNIVERSAL 
PREFERENCE FOR THE DROWNING TRICK. 

Under the comprehensive term, " mysterious disappearance," 
may be classed a majority of the frauds upon Hfe-insurance 
companies. Adventurers who hesitate at the commission of 
capital crimes are quite willing to leave behind them, through 
the dramatic effect of dissolving views, reasonable conclusions 
or presumptions of their death. 

There is a remarkable monotony in the recurrence of these 
disappearances, the favorite method in most cases being by 
immersion and pretended drowning in some convenient stream 
of water. It is a trick which is usually planned with a good 
deal of art and executed with a good deal of skill; yet there 
is almost always an ear-mark or trail which, however insigni- 
ficant to an untutored eye, is sure to lead to eventual capture. 
The case of a Massachusetts merchant, as related by W. G. 
Davies, Esq., in an address before the New York Medico- 
Legal Society, may be taken as the type of a large class. He 
had embarrassed his affairs by a long-continued series of for- 
geries, had become somewhat apprehensive of the result to 
himself, and endeavored to solve his difficulties by a mysterious 
disappearance from a Fall River boat. He was known to have 
left New York on it, but was not seen the next morning, and 
on examination his outer clothing was found in his state-room, 
but no trace of himself. His life was heavily insured, he was 
known to be financially embarrassed, and the first supposition 
naturally was that he had committed suicide. Unfortunately 
for the success of his well-laid plans, the victims of his crimes 
were sufficiently skeptical of his death to secure a large detec- 
tive force to trace him, and their efforts resulted in his arrest 
at San Francisco as he was about to embark for Australia. 



80 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

His plan of operation had been vtry simple — he merely left 
the suit of clothes he had worn in his state-room, taking an- 
other from his valise, shaved his beard and whiskers, and 
stepped forth so altered that no casual observer the next morn- 
ing recognized him as the man he had seen the night before. 
Mr. Davies also gives the following particulars of an attempt 
to defraud three insurance companies by two men named Shep- 
herd, who, in the construction of their plot, exhibited more 
care and greater attention to details. 

A POTOMAC RIVER CASE. 

About the middle of July, 1873, one George Shepherd called 
at the house of a farmer in ]\Iar}dand, living near the Potomac 
River, nearly opposite Alexandria, and asked and obtained per- 
mission to spend the night. One of the family was a boy of 
about sixteen years of age, apparently a simple, well-meaning 
creature, not overburdened with brains, who seemed to Shep- 
herd a fitting tool for the scheme he had in mind. In the course 
of the evening's conversation he suggested to the farmer, who 
spoke of his desire for additional help in har\^esting, that he had 
a brother living with him in Alexandria who would be glad to 
accept a short engagement. The proposal was accepted and 
James Shepherd entered into the farmer's employ, his brother 
visiting him almost daily and thus continuing his own acquaint- 
ance with the family. After a week of these preliminaries, 
James, who had by this time become quite well acquainted with 
the boy already mentioned, proposed to him one evening to go 
out on the river for a fishing excursion with his brother George, 
and the two together went to the water, where they found George 
in a boat. This latter had some pecuharities of construction 
which are entitled to especial mention. It was an ordinary 
working-boat about twelve feet in length, having two seats in 
the centre, but none in the bow or stern. On the latter was 
fastened a platform which projected out over the water some 
ten or twelve inches, and almost as much on each side, and a 
rope ran along the outside of the boat from the bow to the stern, 
and dragged some additional length in the water. The weather 
was warm, but George wore a rubber coat over his other cloth- 
ing. In this boat thus prepared the party started about dusk, 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 81 

James and the boy each pulling an oar and George sitting in the 
stern. They stopped twice and anchored to fish, and having 
consumed the time until it was quite dark, the night being 
cloudy, the Shepherds proposed to pull up the anchor and go 
ashore. They were then on the flats between the channel and 
the shore, the moon was obscured by thick clouds, and the only 
light visible proceeded from a light-house on the Virginia 
shore opposite to them. On the return trip the position of the 
parties was somewhat altered; George sat in the bow of the 
boat, the boy in the centre, pulling both oars, so that his back 
was towards him and his attention fully occupied, and James 
on the other seat. Suddenly, as the boat was proceeding 
quietly without any jar or shock, a splash was heard, James 
cried out that his brother had fallen overboard, and the boy 
turning his head, saw him for one brief instant near the boat 
on the surface of the water, beneath which he immediately 
sank. The two rowed about for some time, and poked with 
their oars on the bottom of the river, but of course did not 
find what one of them, at least, knew very well was not there. 
After fifteen minutes spent in this useless employment they 
proceeded to the shore, when the boy was at once sent to a 
distance to inform a neighbor of the accident, thus giving 
George an opportunity of coming out from under the stern 
of the boat, where he had supported himself by the rope, and 
betaking himself to a place of security. The neighbors were 
told the story, and urged to search for the body; but the 
rogues were inferior to their English prototypes in neglecting 
to procure a corpse to personate the absent one, and no body 
was ever found. James remained in the farmer's employ for 
a few days longer, until he had recovered from his grief suf- 
ficiently to enable him to take the boy before a notary public 
in Alexandria, and have him swear to an affidavit detailing the 
circumstances of the death of George, as he understood them, 
and then he too disappeared from view for a while. 

About this time the police of Alexandria became very much 
exercised about the mysterious movements of some men who 
appeared to be living in a swamp near the town, and as it was 
feared that they were plotting burglaries at least, it was de- 
cided to efifect their capture. A sudden and unexpected move- 



82 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

ment resulted in the discovery of the Shepherds' boat, contain- 
ing two men, one of whom escaped at the first alarm, but the 
other, who proved to be James Shepherd, was taken prisoner. 
He was found to be heavily armed, and to have on his person 
three policies of insurance which had been issued by as many 
companies upon the life of his brother George, and the affida- 
vits of the latter's death made by the boy and himself. In his 
first fright and alarm he confessed the whole fraud, but subse- 
quently decided to contradict his statements and to plead not 
guilty to the indictment which was found against him for per- 
jury in swearing to his brother's death-; the event proved his 
wisdom, for the jury before whom he was tried were unable 
to make up what they were pleased to call their minds, although 
several witnesses deposed to having seen George Shepherd 
since the time of his alleged death, and their disagreement 
was a virtual discharge of the prisoner. He was so embold- 
ened by this success, that he had an administrator of his broth- 
er's estate appointed in Richmond and commenced a suit on 
the policies in his name. It is needless to add that it was not 
one which gave the companies interested much anxiety, familiar 
as they are with the extraordinary vagaries of petit juries. 

THE CURIOUS CASE OF SARGENT— ALLEN. 

For boldness of conception, for ingenuity in execution, and 
for unblushing perjury in its support, this conspiracy to defraud 
is one of the most remarkable of its kind. The facts are not 
numerous, but are full of interest, and they may be related, 
briefly, as follows: 

On the 1 6th of November, 1865, a man calling himself John 
H. Sargent applied to the agent of the Travelers Insurance 
Company of Hartford, in Beloit, Wisconsin, for three months' 
insurance against death by accident, and obtained a policy in 
the sum of $3,000. This man came from Rockford, Illinois, 
the day before, in company with a woman named Mrs. Achsah 
E. Follett, a widow, who lived near Pecatonica, Illinois. He 
registered their names at the Bushnell House, Beloit, on the 
15th day of November, and they were assigned to separate 
rooms. They were married the next morning by Rev. S. H. 
Stocking of Beloit, in presence of Mrs. Stocking, Miss Stock- 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 83 

ing, and Mrs. Purcell, all residents of Beloit. Sargent applied 
for his insurance policy about nine o'clock A. M., after his mar- 
riage, stating that he was in a great hurry to take the ten o'clock 
train. The poHcy was written and delivered to him, and was 
made payable, in case of loss, to his wife, Achsah E. Sargent. 
Both parties to the marriage were strangers in Beloit 

The newly-wedded couple immediately left the place, and we 
hear nothing further concerning them until on the morning of 
December 15th, when the people of the village of Pecatonica 
were notified by Henry J. Allen and his brother-in-law Samuel 
A. Corwin of that place, and Emanuel Hill of Rockford, that 
John H. Sargent, who had been skating, in company with Cor- 
win, on the Pecatonica River during the afternoon of that day, 
had fallen through an air-hole and disappeared under the ice. 
Thorough search for the body was immediately instituted and 
continued during the next two days by a large number of 
citizens, but no trace of it was discovered. 

Proofs of the death of Sargent, and the widow's claim which 
had arisen under the accident policy, were forwarded without 
delay to the insurance company — the proof papers consisting 
of the afifidavits of Allen, Corwin, and Hill, all of whom swore 
positively to the drowning of Sargent at the time and in the 
manner above stated. Soon after receiving notice of this loss 
a special agent of the company visited Pecatonica, and upon 
inquiry of the citizens as to the facts and circumstances sur- 
rounding the accident, he came to the conclusion that, although 
the body had not been found, there was no good reason to 
doubt the death of the insured. The people generally ex- 
pressed their belief in the occurrence as alleged, though there 
were a few persons who held a different opinion. The officers 
of the company, not being fully satisfied, directed further inves- 
tigation, which resulted in their determination to withhold im- 
mediate payment of the claim, although there was nothing but 
vague suspicion to justify delay. The suspicion was founded 
mainly upon the bad character which the parties, especially 
Allen, bore in their own neighborhood, and the singular cir- 
cumstance that Sargent, who had been married only four weeks 
(every day of which had been spent away from his bride) did not, 
on his return to the town where she was living, first visit her 



84 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

before skating with his friends upon the Pecatonica River. It 
was decided to resist at law, if need be, what appeared to be an 
attempt to defraud the company. 

A search for John H. Sargent living was then commenced, 
and the inquiry pursued dihgently, and into distant regions, for 
some three months without success. No one outside of the 
Allen clan had ever seen Sargent, and no trace of the man could 
be found except through them, or through the unsatisfactory 
information which they were willing to give. In the course of 
this search an agent of the company visited Beloit and inter- 
viewed the clergyman and the witnesses who were present at 
the marriage of Sargent and Mrs. Follett. He then visited the 
insurance agent at Beloit, who issued the policy, and learned 
from him that Sargent pawned a silver watch, of little value, for 
the premium on his policy. The watch had been sold, but was 
hunted up and secured. The hotel register was examined, and 
it was found that Sargent had registered his name with the 
initials transposed thus, H. J. instead of J. H. Sargent. The 
latter circumstance led to the belief that " Sargent " was a myth, 
and that the name was adopted for fraudulent purposes by the 
person who contracted the marriage and took out the insurance 
policy. While one might transpose the initials of another's 
name by accident, it was thought impossible that such a mis- 
take would occur in writing one's own name. The circumstance 
recalled the fact that the initials of Allen's first names were H, 
J., and the thought suggested itself that he might have regis- 
tered the name, and that in doing so he unwittingly committed 
the blunder. Some of Allen's handwriting was sought and ob- 
tained, and lo! the counterpart of the letters forming the 
signature of J. H. Sargent to the application for insurance and 
of H. J. Sargent on the hotel register, was unmistakably there. 
It was also ascertained that the watch had been repaired at a 
shop in Rockford, for Henry J. Allen, some three weeks before 
the time when it was pawned at Beloit for the insurance 
premium. 

Measures were then taken to procure a sight of Allen by the 
clergyman and witnesses to the marriage, and by the agent who 
issued the policy. One of these identified Allen, positively, as 
Sargent, while all the others confirmed this identification with 
more or less certainty. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 85 

In due time the case of Achsah E. Sargent versus The 
Travelers Insurance Company was called for trial in the Circuit 
Court for Boone County, Illinois. The plaintiff testified that 
she had been married to John H. Sargent, on the i6th day of 
November, 1865; that immediately after the marriage Sargent 
took out the insurance policy and then left for the oil regions 
of Pennsylvania; that on the 15th day of December, following, 
Sargent arrived in Pecatonica upon the westward bound train; 
that on that afternoon he was skating on the Pecatonica River 
in company with Samuel A. Corwin ; and that while so skating, 
and in. the presence of Henry J. Allen and Emanuel Hill, who 
stood on the bank of the river at the time, he fell into an air- 
hole and was drowned, and that his body never had been re- 
covered. On cross-examination, Mrs. Sargent was unable to 
give any facts leading to the identity of her alleged husband. 
She did not know his nationality; she did not know his place 
of birth; and she was ignorant of father, mother, brother, or 
sister, or any other relative near or remote. She had simply 
married him, and that was all; for the same day he left her, 
and she never saw him again. Being requested to describe his 
personal appearance, she drew from her bosom a photograph, 
which she swore was a true and correct picture of her husband 
John H. Sargent. 

Allen, Corwin, and Hill each testified to their acquaintance 
with John H. Sargent, and to the particulars of his accidental 
drowning, of which they were eye-witnesses, as has been stated. 
Mrs. Almira Allen, wife of Henry J. Allen, testified that 
Sargent took dinner at her house in Pecatonica on the day 
of the alleged drowning, and that she heard of the drowning at 
about five o'clock that afternoon. Abram D. Allen, father of 
Henry J. Allen, testified that he knew Sargent, and gave a de- 
scription of his personal appearance ; he was shown the photo- 
graph and expressed his opinion that it was the picture of 
Sargent. Ann M. Redfield testified that a man once visited 
Mrs. Follett's house, where the witness was living, and that 
Mrs. Follett told her the man's name was John H. Sargent: 
witness had a distinct view of the man at tlie time, and retained 
a clear recollection of his appearance; upon being shown the 
photograph she identified it as the picture of the man called 



86 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

Sargent by the plaintiff, Mrs. FoUett. Mary A. Larkin tes- 
tified that she wa^in Beloit on the i6th day of November, 1865, 
and was then and there introduced by plaintiff to a man whom 
she called her husband and by the name of Sargent. On being 
shown the photograph she said that to the best of her recol- 
lection it was the picture of the man introduced to her as 
Sargent. Many other witnesses were examined upon minor 
points, for the plaintiff. 

The defence to the action was stated to be, in substance, 
that no such man as John H. Sargent ever existed; that the 
action was based upon a conspiracy to defraud, in every stage 
of which Henry J. Allen was the chief actor; that said Allen 
himself, under the assumed name of John H. Sargent, went 
through the ceremony of marriage with the plaintiff, at the time 
of the alleged ma'rriage at Beloit; and that it was Allen who 
signed the application, and took out the policy of insurance 
under the assumed name of Sargent. That no person, in fact, 
was drowned; that the pretended drowning was but another 
stage in the development of the original scheme in which Allen, 
Hill, and Corwin were the sole actors; and that no other per- 
son was with them at the time of the alleged drowning — Allen 
skillfully making use of Hill, who was a stranger in Pecatonica, 
as the party who was alleged to have been drowned. And 
further, that on the 23d day of May, 1866, a little more than 
six months after the marriage, the plaintiff was delivered of a 
child, and that her motive in participating in this conspiracy 
was to conceal the presumed criminal intimacy of plaintiff with 
Henry J. Allen, as well as to obtain money fraudulently on the 
policy. 

For the defence. Rev. S. H. Stocking testified that he per- 
formed the marriage ceremony between a man calling himself 
John H. Sargent and a woman calling herself Mrs. A. E. 
Follett; that according to the best of his recollection, and 
without any reasonable doubt, he identified Henry J. Allen as 
the same man and the plaintiff as the same woman. Mrs. E. 
A. Purcell testified that she was present at the marriage of the 
parties; that she next saw the same man in Pecatonica, about 
four or five weeks previous to the trial of this cause; that he 
was then and is now known by the name of Henry J. Allen; 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 87 

that she had no doubt in her recognition of him; that no one 
pointed him out to her; that she had seen him since in Beloit; 
and that she had no doubt he was the man whom she had seen 
married under the name of Sargent. A clerk to the insurance 
agent at Beloit testified that, to the best of his recollection, 
Allen was the man who applied for the insurance. Another 
clerk identified Allen, and had no reasonable doubt that he 
was the man who applied for the insurance under the name of 
Sargent. This witness also identified the watch. Joseph Brit- 
tan, agent for the company, testified to issuing the policy, and 
receiving the watch in pawn for payment of the premium; 
identified the watch, and identified Allen as being, in his 
judgment, the man who obtained the policy and signed the 
name of John H. Sargent to the application. The clerk of the 
hotel at Beloit identified leaf from hotel register, and testified 
that the signatures H. J. Sargent and Mrs. A. E. Follett were 
written by the man who called himself Sargent. A watchmaker 
in Rockford identified the watch as one which had been left 
with him October 19th, 1865, for repair, by Henry J. Allen, to 
whom he delivered it again October 22d. The handwriting of 
Allen, as it appeared in the signature to the application for in- 
surance and in the names upon the hotel register, was recog- 
nized and identified by no less than five citizens of Rockford, 
all of whom had had correspondence with Allen and knew his 
handwriting. 

Up to this stage of the trial, which had occupied more than 
three days, both plaintiff and defendant had presented strong 
points in support of their respective relations to the cause. 
The evidence of the witnesses for the plaintifif would seem, 
certainly, to have been of such a nature that it ought to have 
been conclusive; and although some of these witnesses, in 
public estimation, did not sustain a first-class reputation for 
truth and veracity, it was not probable they could have been 
impeached through the evidence of other witnesses upon that 
fact. The defendant insurance company did not attempt to 
do this — in fact, it became unnecessary. On the fourth day the 
defendant produced the following witnesses, whose brief but 
overwhelming evidence will best tell its own story. 

Lorin M. Whitney testified that he lived in Batavia, Illinois, 



88 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

and that he was a photographer by occupation. The photo- 
graph heretofore introduced in evidence by the plaintiff, as the 
picture of the drowned Sargent, was shown to witness, who 
said: "This photograph is of my make. I have the nega- 
tive from which this picture is made. I took the negative, and 
know the person who sat for it." (Witness here produced the 
negative, which was admitted in evidence to the jury.) "The 
name of the person who sat for this negative is James Clure. 
He Hves in Batavia, IlHnois; is a tailor by trade, and is still 
living. I have seen him nearly every day, and / last saw him 
about an hour ago!'' 

Profound amazement pervaded the court-room, and amidst 
almost breathless silence the name of James Clure was called. 
From a retired seat, the unmistakable original of the plaintiff's 
photograph at once stepped into the presence of the Court, 
jury, and the plaintiff's astonished counsel. He took the stand 
and testified as follows: 

" I live in Batavia, Illinois, and am a tailor by trade. I had 
some photographs taken last fall by Whitney & Kendig, pho- 
tographers in Batavia." Witness was here shown the photo- 
graph introduced in evidence by the plaintiff as that of her hus- 
band, Sargent, and said : " This is one of the photographs I had 
taken. I am acquainted with Henry J. Allen, and at one time 
served under him in the army. He was then captain of my 
company. At Allen's request I sent him this photograph 
about the first of November. I was never known or called by 
the name of John H. Sargent. / was never married to the 
plaintiff. I was never drowned in the Pecatonica River!" 

At the conclusion of Clure's testimony, the counsel for the 
plaintiff made a feeble attempt to use Weller's infallible recipe 
and prove an alibi for Allen at the time of his mock marriage 
with Mrs. Follett, but signally failed, and in freely exhibited 
disgust withdrew the suit. 

The discovery of the final and conclusive evidence was made 
during the trial. Upon examination of the photograph intro- 
duced by the plaintiff as the picture of her husband Sargent, 
the defunct, it was observed quietly that there were certain 
marks upon the back of it indicating the name and residence 
of the photographer, and a shrewd man was sent at once to 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 89 

investigate the matter, with the result as stated. It required 
pretty lively work on the part of the person in pursuit of knowl- 
edge under difficulties (for he had not the photograph itself to 
take with him), and the defendant's counsel had to manage 
adroitly to protract the trial during the absence of the person 
sent When the witnesses were produced in Court the sensa- 
tion was intensely exciting, and the conspirators' cause hope- 
lessly crushed. 

Henry J. Allen and the " Widow Sargent " were subsequently 
indicted by the grand jury of Rock County, Wisconsin (in which 
Beloit is situated) for bigamy. Allen had absconded, but was 
found in Iowa, where he was laid up with serious bodily in- 
juries which he had sustained by a falling tree which he was 
cutting. He was brought away by the officers of justice, on a 
cot or stretcher, as soon as he was able to travel, and was com- 
mitted to jail in Janesville, Wisconsin, in default of bail, as was 
also the widow. After remaining in jail some time, and 
thereby punished to some extent, though not so much as their 
crimes deserved, they were released on nominal bail, which was, 
of course, forfeited, and they escaped further punishment. This 
was the result of humane consideration for the widow, who 
was Allen's dupe, and for her children, and for Allen himself, 
whose confinement really endangered his worthless life. 

A BOSTON SCAMP. 

This individual was a young man of about twenty-five years 
of age when, in 1866, his mysterious disappearance caused a 
momentary flutter in the financial pulse of the several life and 
accident insurance companies which recently had written risks 
upon his life to an amount exceeding $40,000. Alvah K. 
Hurter was senior partner of the firm of Hurter & Dewey, at 
that time doing business in Boston as cotton brokers, and 
resided in Chelsea with his father, who had been connected 
with some missionary station in Syria, as a printer. Young 
Hurter was born in Syria, and there spent his early boyhood. 
The family returned to this country, and in due course of time 
Hurter became engaged in business as stated. 

In the summer of 1866, in company with friends and acquaint- 
ances, he went to Scarborough, Maine. Upon a certain Friday 



90 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

evening, several days after his arrival, he was apparently enjoy- 
ing a sociable game of euchre until about ten o'clock; he then 
wrote a letter to his father — in answer to one notifying him of 
the arrival of his cousin from Mobile, Alabama — in which he 
informed his father that he would be home Saturday night, but 
if anything should prevent would come by the first train Mon- 
day morning. Hurter left the letter upon a table, saying to his 
companions, " I cannot sleep unless I take some exercise be- 
fore going to bed ; I am going out to take a row." The house 
in which the parties were was within a stone's throw of the 
beach, where several small boats were fastened near the water's 
edge. 

He did not afterward return. The next day no trace of him 
was discoverable, but on the second day, Sunday morning, a 
small " dory " was found bottom up, partly stove in, and lying 
near the boat was found one of the oars belonging to it. At 
an inconsiderable distance from the dory was picked up a life- 
preserver vest which was partly filled with air, and further 
search resulted in the discovery of a hat which was identified as 
the one w^orn by Hurter. The place where the boat was found 
was about half an hour's rowing from the house where Hurter 
had been boarding. At certain stages the tide runs swiftly, and 
at its ebb leaves numerous rocks above the surface of the 
water. 

The disappearance was plausibly accounted for after these 
discoveries. It was supposed that Hurter was rowing at the 
time in the usual manner, sitting with his back toward the 
bow of the boat, when the latter ran upon a rock and thereby 
was partly stove in, upset, and Hurter drowned. Search for 
the body was carefully and thoroughly made. At low water the 
bottom could be seen distinctly in most places, and every prob- 
able place was dragged. It did not seem to surprise any one 
that Hurter had lost his life, as was apparently the case. The 
night he went out for exercise was, at the time, somewhat 
dark, and resident fishermen declared it dangerous for a stran- 
ger to be out upon the water at the hour and in the manner 
in which Hurter had made his venture. 

Notices of loss under the several insurance policies were duly 
served upon the companies. Of the sum insured, the Travelers 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARAISrCES. 91 

Insurance Company had written $10,000 in accident insurance, 
and that company at once instituted an investigation of the 
matter. It soon afterward came to light that Hurter had mis- 
appropriated some $2,000 belonging to the firm; that he had 
borrowed $4,000 for the firm, of his father, and $3,000 of other 
parties, for all of which he had failed to account to the firm. 
His business partner was in New York during the period of 
these alleged misdemeanors, and a partial discovery of them 
was made while Hurter was recreating at Scarborough Beach. 
Hurter's partner at once wrote to him requesting him to return 
and adjust his accounts. No notice, apparently, being taken of 
this request, a message was sent to the efifect that some one 
would appear with authority to bring him home, unless he came 
at once. This message was received by Hurter just prior to 
his feeling the necessity for exercise before going to bed. 

On following up the search through the agency of the chiefs 
of police of Boston and Portland, it soon was ascertained that 
Hurter, after suitably arranging the evidences of his drowning, 
went directly to the nearest railroad station, and thence has- 
tened onward to Canada as rapidly as steam-power could carry 
him. All claims against the insurance companies were speedily 
abandoned, and the policies surrendered. 

A SUSQUEHANNA RIVER CASE. 

In the summer of 1866, a man named Knox procured an 
accident insurance ticket of $5,000, in his own favor, upon the 
life of a young man living near Harrisburg, Pennsylvaina, bear- 
ing the singular name of John Smith. The insurance was 
written by the Railway Passengers Assurance Company of 
Hartford. It was to cover a period of two days only, and cost 
fifty cents. As the time, therefore, was short, John made good 
use of it by selecting the very next day for the bathing and 
drowning purpose contemplated in the transaction. He took 
with him a boy who was to bear witness to his final disappear- 
ance from earthly scenes and trials via the ingulfing waters of 
the Susquehanna. The boy, properly coached, bore witness to 
the lamentable fact that he was on the shore watching Smith, 
and saw him drown, after which he carried Smith's clotlies 
homeward. Mr. Knox was distressed and anxious. He even 



92 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

offered a reward of $60 in gold for the recovery of the body — 
but it was not recovered. 

In due time " proofs of death " were made out, and Mr. Knox 
knocked at the door of the company and asked for $5,000. 
Its officers scented fraud, and decHned to pay. Suit was 
brought, and the cause was to have come to a final trial in the 
month of March following, but before the appointed day 
arrived a detective of the company found Mr. Knox in Phila- 
delphia, and exercised such persuasive powers that he owned 
up that it was all a fraud. John Smith was not drowned in 
the slightest degree, but was serving his country as an able- 
bodied soldier of the regular army. It is clear that Mr. Knox 
ought to be serving his country in the penitentiary. 

AN OHIO RIVER CASE. 

On the 14th of August, 1867, a hearing was had before Jus- 
tice Walter, of Washington, D. C, of the case of Joseph Lep- 
pen, alias H. A. Deicher, who was charged by his wife, 
Josephine Leppen, with having committed adultery. She also 
charged that she was afraid that the said Leppen would do her 
bodily harm. He was further charged with an attempt to de- 
fraud the Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company out of 
the sum of $10,000, as the following letter from the president 
of the company would show: 

Office of the Connecticut Mutual Life Ins. Co., 
Hartford, Conn., August 12, 1867. 
Dear Sir— I have noticed to-day an account taken from the Wash- 
ington S^ar of an attempt to defraud a life-insurance company by one 
Joseph Leppen, alias H. A. Deicher, who is said to be a clerk in one 
of the offices of the Patent Office building. As the account corre- 
sponds precisely with the proofs of loss and circumstances of a claim 
made upon our company by Josephine Leppen for an insurance on 
the life of her husband, Joseph Leppen, except as to time, we are 
anxious to ascertain if there is or was a clerk in any of the depart- 
ments by the name of Joseph Leppen, alias H. A. Deicher, and know 
of no one to address but you to make this inquiry. The account states 
that Leppen was arrested at the instance of his wife for adultery, and 
he was committed for trial by Justice Walter. This may give you a 
clew to the case; or, if you have not time for the inquiry, please 
inform me if there is a Justice Walter in Washington, and give me his 
address, that I can write to him. Joseph Leppen was insured in our 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 93 

company in January, 1862. In December, 1866, claim was made on 
us that Leppen was drowned in the Ohio River, about the nth of 
August previous, as he took passage on a steamer at Parkersburg 
the day previous, and when the boat arrived at Wheeling he was miss- 
ing; but his clothes and effects were found in his state-room, and on 
the l6th day of August a body was found in the river, some twenty- 
five miles below Wheeling, and though it could not be identified as 
Leppen's, his wife claims, on account of his continued absence, that 
it was that of her husband, and demands the insurance money. All 
the circumstances stated in the Star paper correspond with her state- 
ment, except in relation to time, and we are inclined to think it is 
the development of what we had always supposed was an attempt to 
defraud us of the money. If you can put us on the track of an 
investigation you will much oblige 

Yours truly, 

Guy R. Phelps, President. 
To J. N. Prior, Washington, D. C. 

Mr. Kasche testified that the defendant came to his house 
four months previously, and gave the name of Deicher; that he 
stated that he had left Europe because he had killed his supe- 
rior officer, and he desired to stay there till he could hear from 
his family. Subsequently a man came to witness's house, who 
recognized the prisoner as Mr. Leppen. The prisoner then 
told witness that his name was Leppen; that he was in Park- 
ersburg, and got on the steamer to go to Wheeling, and got to 
gambling on the boat; that he lost his money, and himself and 
another of those engaged got to fighting, and fell overboard; 
that he got ashore and the other man was drowned. He then 
placed his pocket trinkets in the pockets of the man who was 
drowned, thinking he would try and create the impression that 
he was dead, so that his wife might obtain the insurance on his 
life, and that, having obtained the money, she might join him, 
and they could go back to Europe. So far as the charge of 
adultery was concerned, nothing was proved beyond the fact 
that the prisoner was seen to kiss the wife of the witness. 

After hearing the evidence of a number of witnesses, the pris- 
oner was remanded for a further hearing. Justice Walter stated 
that from facts within his knowledge there was strong suspi- 
cion that the prisoner had pushed the man, with whom he had 
been gambling, overboard, and that he felt justified in holding 
him in custody until he could obtain the presence here of par- 
ties in Wheeling and Hartford. 



94 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

Leppen, however, was subsequently discharged from custody, 
after having his picture taken for the rogue's gallery. Dr. 
Phelps, the president of the insurance company, wrote to Jus- 
tice Walter, before whom the case was tried, that no valid com- 
plaint could be made against Leppen himself, as the claim for 
$5,000 and representations of death had been made by his 
wife. If she were in collusion in a transaction to defraud, he 
could be punished as an accessory, if found guilty; but being a 
complainant against Leppen, it appeared to the officials that 
she was innocent, therefore all prosecution must be dropped. 
Dr. Phelps added: "The transaction was adroitly performed, 
and the circumstantial proofs were quite strong, but we had 
some suspicion that all was not right, and declined paying the 
policy, although threatened with a suit, so that we are not actu- 
ally defrauded." A photograph forwarded from Connecticut, 
purporting to be a picture of Leppen, formerly of Cleveland, 
Ohio, and more recently of Wheeling, West Virginia, was iden- 
tified as the likeness of the accused. The same picture had 
previously been identified by a coroner's jury as strongly re- 
sembling the body taken from the Ohio River, after Leppen's 
disappearance a year before. The accused, at the time of his 
arrest, was employed as a clerk at the Department of the In- 
terior, and was a native of Bohemia. 

THE GAY DECEIVER, BOSWELL alias HOWE. 

In the course of the year 1868, " General " D. K. Boswell and 
wife made their appearance in Muncie, Indiana. The General 
was a little past the middle age, of affable manners and engag- 
ing address. His statement in regard to himself was that he 
had been appointed a Brigader-General in the Union service 
during the war; had amassed considerable property in the 
course of a long business life, and had come to Muncie to end 
his days in peace. He reported a moderate amount of prop- 
erty for taxation, was popularly believed to be worth about 
$50,000, and was considered a valuable addition to the Grand 
List of the town. He devoted considerable time to the Order 
of Masonry, in which he had taken the higher degrees ; was very 
fond of society, and soon became generally popular with the 
citizens of Muncie. His wife, considerably his junior, kept her 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 95 

house in good order, attended to her own affairs, and made as 
favorable an impression in her way as her husband did in his. 
The Muncie people seem to have accepted the Boswells without 
credentials and without a thought of asking for them. If they 
had inquired in the right place, they might have obtained in- 
formation embodied in the following letter, which was written 
to a party who subsequently became interested in bringing 
General Boswell to justice: 

Sir — If the D. K. Boswell who swindled you is the Daniel K. 
Boswell who in 1845-6 left his wife and children in Galena, 111.; went 
to Hannibal or Palmyra, Mo.; ran away with old man Ross's 
daughter; said he was married (?) on a steamboat; took a free negress 
from Indiana to Lexington, Ky.; sold her (after she had a child by 

him) to a Mr. for a slave; was indicted, but escaped (about 

1848) to Memphis, Tenn. ; set up a picture gallery; made obscene 
pictures; perjured himself in a deposition to blackmail a citizen there; 
went to Holly Springs, Miss.; in September, 1848, stopped some 
time at a hotel, where he said he was robbed by a servant of $800; 
had the poor slave whipped nearly to death before it was discovered 
that he had had no money and had not been robbed; got into many 
difficulties there; shot a man's mules; committed perjury; ran away 
to West Tennessee; "got religion;" joined the Campbellite church; 
again got into difficulties, and disappeared, but whither this " biogra- 
pher " knows not — if this is your man, he is the most unmitigated 
scoundrel unhung! 

But information was not solicited and was not volunteered, so 
that in 1870, or thereabouts, when the Franklin Life Insurance 
Company of Indianapolis wished to organize a " Local Board " 
in Muncie, Boswell was recommended by men of long residence 
and of high position in the town, as the man above all others 
who should be enlisted in the matter. He was approached, the 
plan was talked up, and he finally consented to insure his life 
for $10,000, and to become president of the Local Board. His 
supposed influence in the town was so great that, for the sake of 
getting it, the company did not demand a cash payment of 
any part of the premium on his policy, but accepted his note 
for six months for the entire amount. This note was renewed 
at maturity for another six months. Meanwhile, as a sort of 
pastime, Boswell had gone into the sale of a patent fruit-dryer, 
and was supposed to be making considerable money. 

On the 15th of September, 1871, Boswell and his wife started 



96 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

for St. Louis, he having business there, as was supposed. At 
the Montclair Railway passenger station Boswell purchased two 
insurance tickets issued by the Railway Passengers Assurance 
Company of Hartford, Conn., the tickets being for the prin- 
cipal sum of $3,000 each, and good for ten days. His second 
year's premium in the Franklin Life would fall due before his 
return, and also his note for the first year's premium. Being 
reminded of this, he gave a note to renew the one falling due 
— not taking up the renewed note, however, as it was not quite 
due — and remarked that he would attend to the second year's 
premium on his return. He went to St Louis, and on the 226. 
of September he, with his wife, took passage on the steamer 
St. Luke, for some point up the Missouri River. Boswell and 
wife went on board the steamer some two or three hours before 
she started. The " General " spoke of not feeling well ; re- 
ceived a friend or two in his state-room; but no one remem- 
bers seeing him on board after the boat left the levee. His 
wife went to the supper table alone, and while at tea remarked 
to the clerk of the boat that her husband was too sick to come 
to the table. The clerk offered to send a cup of tea and some- 
thing to eat, to his state-room, but she said no, he did not 
then want anything at all. Their baggage consisted of one 
small trunk, which was taken to their state-room. 

About midnight, some little time after entering the Missouri 
River, Mrs. Boswell gave the alarm that her husband had fallen 
overboard. The boat was at once stopped, a yawl lowered, 
and a fruitless search made for the body. Mrs. Boswell's de- 
scription of the " accident," as set forth in her subsequent affi- 
davit in support oi her claim under the insurance policies, 
is as follows: "At about 11.30 P. M. that night, Mr. Bos- 
well complained of being unwell and needing fresh air. We 
went from our state-room to the guard of the boat. Mr. Bos- 
well seated himself on the rail with one arm around the 
stanchion, and wished for some water. I could find no servant 
to fetch it, and started for it myself to the state-room which 
we had just left. As I neared the state-room door I cast my 
eyes back and saw Mr. Boswell falling backward overboard. I 
sprang to catch him, but could not. I saw him reach the 
water; there was a splash and all was over. No cry was made. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 97 

I immediately gave the alarm, but it was some time before 
the steamer could be put about. Nothing was ever seen or 
heard of the body, though diligent search was made and a re- 
ward of $ioo was offered for it. He had on his person, in 
a pocket in his drawers, about $2,000, which he had received 
at St. Louis." 

Search for the body being abandoned, the boat proceeded on 
its way up the river, and the disconsolate widow went on shore 
at the next landing, where she waited for the down boat and 
then returned to St. Louis. 

Due notice of loss, under their respective policies, was given 
to the insurance companies, the agent of one company closing 
his letter as follows: " I would state that Gen. Boswell was one 
of our best citizens, of the best habits, respected and esteemed 
by all who knew him." 

An investigation followed which led the accident insurance 
company to believe the whole thing a fraud. At the time of 
these occurrences the Muncie Local Board of the Franklin Life 
Company expressed their conviction that Boswell was drowned 
as alleged, but could not see that their policy upon his life was 
in force at the date of drowning, the policy having lapsed 
the day previous. The story of the General's accident was 
reasonable enough, and Mrs. Boswell's narration of it was given 
in an apparently sincere and earnest manner, with deep feeling, 
with tears, and in a natural tone of bereavement which enlisted 
in her behalf the heartfelt sympathies of the good people of 
Muncie. There was unanimity of sentiment in that com- 
munity in their high estimate of the departed General, and in 
their sorrow for the stricken widow; but to the parties investi- 
gating the facts there were circumstances which seemed to cast 
a doubt upon the genuineness of the afifair. Disappearances by 
drowning come to the frequent notice of accident insurance exe- 
cutive officers, and there are certain " ear-marks " which seem 
to distinguish fraudulent cases from those which are genuine. 
These were observed in this case. The job, though well done, 
was over-done, and Mrs. Boswell was able to describe very ac- 
curately the precise spot where the General fell over the rail, 
and the very stanchion around which he had tlirown his arm. 
A visit to this place on the steamer determined the utter im- 



98 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

possibility of a person falling into the water from that point 
He must have jumped overboard to have got into the water 
from that place, and a large guy rope would have prevented 
that, unless he ducked his head for the purpose of avoiding it. 
Again, it was evident that he would have struck the lower deck 
or its rail, or a brace which at that point projects from the 
under side of the upper deck. This would have attracted the 
notice of the laborers who were at that time on duty there. 
Nothing of the kind was observed. There was no eye-witness 
to the alleged accident, save Mrs. Boswell, and no one could 
be found who saw Boswell on board after the steamer started. 

On the other hand, there apparently was no motive for per- 
petrating a fraud, especially by a gentleman universally repre- 
sented as a straightforward business man, honest, temperate, 
and widely respected. 

It was impossible to prove a negative, and the adjuster of 
the accident company, having on his hands at that time other 
and complicated cases of mysterious disappearance, concluded 
to offer to " buy a peace " with Mrs. Boswell, provided it could 
be done for a sum not greater than would be expended by 
the company in an effort to find the missing man. A meeting 
was therefore arranged, and the widow, through an adminis- 
trator appointed for the purpose, discharged the company upon 
the payment of a sum agreed upon. The community generally 
regarded this action of the company as unjust in the extreme, 
and the company's agent in Muncie, as an expression of sym- 
pathy toward the bereaved, took the widow to his house and 
kept her for several weeks as the guest of his wife and family. 
The company's adjuster believed that through this settlement 
Boswell would be thrown off his guard, as there would be less 
necessity for his carefully hiding himself; and an arrangement 
was made with a local attorney to promptly advise the com- 
pany concerning any future developments — which, in the 
opinion of the adjuster, were sure to follow. 

In due time the wddow instituted her action against the 
Franklin Life Company upon the $10,000 policy above men- 
tioned. The cause proceeded to its first trial and resulted in 
disagreement of the jury. The company's defence was upon 
the ground that the policy had lapsed at the time of Boswell's 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 99 

death. A second trial resulted in a verdict for the plaintiff, 
the jury finding that the third note given by Boswell was in 
payment of his second year's premium, while notoriously, as a 
matter of fact, it was a renewal of the note for the first year's 
premium. The verdict in her favor was for over $ii,ooo. 
This verdict was set aside and a new trial granted by the Cir- 
cuit Court. Three years had now lapsed since Boswell's death, 
and the above-mentioned cause was pending in the Circuit 
Court which was sitting in May, 1874, when an unexpected 
denouement startled the citizens of that vicinity. 

A few days prior to the time when this cause would have 
been reached upon the calendar, an executive officer of the 
Franklin Life, who had known Boswell personally, was notified 
that Boswell was alive and might be found in Galesburg, 111., 
under the name and title of Judge I. S. Howe. He immediately 
went to Galesburg, and in a very short time after his arrival 
there saw Judge Howe playing croquet with some ladies and 
gentlemen, and recognized him at once as the long-lost General 
Boswell. Not making himself known, however, he telegraphed 
to Muncie for another gentleman, who was well acquainted with 
Boswell, to come on at once to Galesburg. The gentleman 
did as requested, and the two called on Judge Howe, fully 
identified him, and compelled him to admit that he was Bos- 
well. His story was that the fall into the river, and a com- 
pulsory bath of several hours therein, rendered him insensible, 
so that he did not know when or where he drifted ashore and 
was found. His first recollection was of being in the woods 
among wood-choppers who had rescued him, put him before a 
fire, and brought him to life again only to find his money and 
his memory gone. Having identified him, the two gentlemen 
returned to Indianapolis. From there they sent to Muncie 
and had Mrs. Boswell arrested upon a charge of perjury and 
attempt to defraud. This arrest came upon the Muncie people 
like a thunderbolt. Mrs. Boswell, for three years, had lived an 
irreproachable life, as a widow, among them. No breath of sus- 
picion had stirred the quiet waters. Mrs. Boswell's counsel 
having read the charges under which she was arrested, went to 
her and asked her to tell them the truth — the whole truth — that 
they might know what they must do in her defence. Without 



100 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

a change of color or a quiver of her lips or eyes, she called on 
God to witness that if her husband was alive she did not know 
it; that she had not seen him nor heard a word from him since 
he fell into the river on that fatal night; and that no money 
which the world contained could have tempted her to live 
so long away from him. So thoroughly was the sympathy 
of the people with her, and so suspicious did the alleged dis- 
covery of the living Boswell appear, especially as it was made 
just before the cause of Mrs. Boswell versus The Franklin Life 
was to be tried, and as it was not verified by the production of 
Boswell's person, that it was with difficulty the prosecutors suc- 
ceeded in having Mrs. Boswell bound over at her preliminary 
examination. She was bound over, however, and in default of 
surety went to jail. 

Meanwhile the Railway Passengers Assurance Company was 
advised of the " materialization " of the drowned Boswell, and 
they at once sent a representative to Indianapolis. After con- 
sultation with the officers of the Franklin Life, he went directly 
to Galesburg only to find that Judge Howe had moved. Be- 
tween two days, he had been driven in a buggy to a station 
on the C. B. & Q. Ry., and had gone South. He had left 
behind him a trunk as security for a loan of $200. This trunk 
was searched and was found to contain several interesting relics. 
There were photographic pictures of Boswell and of his wife, 
books on Masonry, Masonic regalia, etc., etc. There were 
also letters and other papers which fully established not only 
the identity of the parties, but conclusively showed the guilt of 
Mrs. Boswell. One of these papers was a receipt dated three 
days after the alleged drovming, and when Mrs. B. was in St. 
Louis after her trip up and down the river. It read as follows : 

St. Louis, Sept. 25, 1871. 
Received of I. S. Howe forty dollars for a lot of second-hand 
clothing and books belonging to my late husband, lost off the 
steamer St. Luke, on the Missouri River, Sept. 22, 1871. 

M..V. Boswell. 

It thus appeared that Boswell had left the steamer after 
changing a portion of his dress in his state-room, having a 
change at hand in the small trunk they had brought with them 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 101 

for the purpose. He had gone ashore unobserved before the 
steamer started, and remained in St. Louis until his wife's re- 
turn, when she met him as per agreement, dehvered to him his 
clothing left on board, and he at the same time took from her 
the foregoing receipt, so that, in the event of his being caught 
with his own clothes on, or while reading one of his own books, 
he could prove by this receipt that he bought the clothes and 
books of Mrs. Boswell, who, in her kindness, went so far as to 
certify they were the property of her late husband, who had been 
lost off a certain steamer, in a certain river, at a certain date! 
Exceedingly attenuated ! 

From the correspondence found in this trunk it was ascer- 
tained that Boswell and his wife had been in frequent com- 
munication. Her letters to him were addressed as though 
written to her niece Ida, and signed " Your Aunt Mary." One 
of these letters reads as follows, but requires a word of expla- 
nation to be understood. It is undisguisedly in Mrs. Boswell's 
handwriting, and written to her husband from Fort Wayne, 
Indiana. Allusion is made to one of Mrs. Boswell's attorneys, 
and his wish that she should go to Xenia, to take a deposition 
for use in the suit against the Franklin Life. Boswell's letter 
in reply was to be sent to Xenia, thus to avoid the possible 
recognition of his handwriting by the Muncie postmaster. The 
letter is herewith produced verbatim. 

Fort Wayne, April 17, 1874. 
My dear niece Ida. 

I am here yet, hope this Will find you well. I just received a 
letter from Buckels telling me to come on and go to Xenia to take 
John's dep'ition. I will be here tody or tomorrow. You write me 
at Xenia. I will if nothing happens I will be there by Wedsdy next. 
I have bin waitting for money. 1 hope to get it all rite. If I only 
had plenty here I could get along, but hope I will get all rite before 
long. I hope to get through then I will see you just as soon as I 
can. Hope this will find you in good health, this leeves in good 
health. I hope to have all things rite yet. I live in hopes if I die 
in dispare. Do take good care of your health till I see you. Keep 
in as close as you can till you get through with ??iy 7ncdicine then 
you will be all rite I hope. I got those presents. I was glad to get 
them, hope you have my letters in this time. I am in a hurry. I will 
write when I get there. I will close. Much love to all & plenty to 
your deer self. May God be with you and bless you is my prayer. 



102 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

Take good care of your health. I will direct this to you so you 
sine your full name " Ida," then it will be rite. Then if it should 
be [there are a few illegible words here] it would be sent back to 
you. Write to Xenia I will be there soon. Goodby till you here 
again. 

Your Ant, M'y. 

With the pictures of Mrs. Boswell found in the trunk, it was 
easily ascertained that she had visited her husband in Gales- 
burg, boarding for two or three weeks at a time in the same 
house with him, and passing herself ofif as his niece. 

The rest of the story is soon told. The proof was so con- 
clusive against Mrs. Boswell, that when her trial came on, her 
attorneys admitted the facts as claimed by the prosecution, and 
she received the sentence of the Court for her crimes. Boswell, 
alias Howe, after a long chase, was captured in Northern 
Michigan, taken to Muncie, July i, 1874, where he was 
recognized by every one who saw him, and thence taken to 
Indianapolis and lodged in jail. His trial was delayed several 
months through the efforts of his attorneys, and at last, broken 
in health and wrecked in reputation, he was released on bail. 
He finally escaped further punishment through a legal techni- 
cality, on the ground that a man and wife could not conspire, 
and rejoined his wife, who had served out her term of im- 
prisonment. They have gone forth without money, health, 
friends, or reputation, and are left to meditate upon the results 
of their attempt to defraud the insurance companies. They 
suffered prolonged separations from each other, privations and 
hardships of no Hght degree, imprisonment, and disgrace. 
They lost all that is worth having in this life, and are able to 
offset these fearful facts with a knowledge of having realized 
for all this a little more than $400 of the insurance company's 
money. 

A SAVANNAH RIVER CASE. 

In the county of Scriven, State of Georgia, on the banks of 
the Savannah, dwelt Captain Martin L. Bryan, formerly of the 
25th Regiment, Georgia, C. S. A., a well-to-do citizen of about 
fifty years of age, owner of fifteen hundred or two thousand 
acres of land on the river bottoms, and whose house had been 
burned by the army that escorted Sherman on his celebrated 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 103 

" march to the sea." The Captain had lost much of his prop- 
erty during the late unpleasantness, and resolved to protect the 
interests of his family by obtaining life insurance. He went to 
Savannah, called on the insurance men, and obtained a $10,000 
policy in the Knickerbocker Life, of New York; $10,000 in the 
Accident, of Columbus; $10,000 in the Casualty, of New Jer- 
sey; $10,000 in the National Travelers', of New York; and 
$40,000 in the Travelers, of Hartford — eighty thousand dollars 
in all. 

Subsequently, to the intense grief of deploring friends and 
relatives, the Captain was drowned in the river. But while 
they lamented his death, they commended his prudence, and 
in due time a huge bulk of documentary evidence of death, 
certified to with all ofHcial formalities, was forwarded to the 
companies. 

The so-called ''proofs of death" cover no less than forty 
pages of closely-written legal cap paper, wherein is set forth, 
with minuteness of detail, time, place, and circumstances of the 
Captain's death by drowning, with repetitious asseveration of 
the high tone and gentlemanly character of the deceased. These 
papers were prepared with great care by the Captain's son, 
a law student, who did himself credit, in a certain way, by the 
lawyer-like, consistent, and conclusive manner in which the 
evidence was presented, leaving no reason, apparently, to doubt 
that the death occurred as stated. 

The first affidavit is that of Hansford R. Owens, who, being 
duly sworn, said that he was intimately acquainted with Captain 
Bryan, the deceased, and had known him familiarly for many 
years, living within a mile of him ; that, in the early part of the 
year 1867, deceased engaged deponent to assist him in the 
survey of some of his swamp-lands lying in Savannah River 
marshes; and that on the loth day of June, of this year, depo- 
nent and said deceased, together with Curtis Humphries, Sr., 
and Joseph C. Bryan, son of said deceased, did proceed to sur- 
vey said lands ; that after said survey was finished, they caught, 
cooked, and ate a mess of fish, after which deponent and de- 
ceased started to remove a batteau belonging to said deceased. 
They proceeded to said batteau, loosed it, and started down 
the river in it, going pretty fast, as said batteau was a new one, 



104 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

and they were in a measure testing its speed; that, after going 
about a quarter of a mile, said batteau struck a snag, not di- 
rectly with its bow, but on the right side and about three feet 
below the bow, so that the batteau was suddenly thrown right 
across the current of the stream; that just as said batteau 
struck said snag it was elevated by it on the right side, so that 
deponent and deceased were both thrown across to the left side, 
which caused said batteau to dip water considerably, and before 
they could right themselves and regain uheir seats in the central 
part of said batteau, their weight on the left side and the force 
of the current, which was very strong and rapid (the batteau 
being by this time right crosswise the current, and presenting a 
broadside to it), caused said batteau to be filled with water and 
almost immediately overturned, by which deponent and de- 
ceased were both precipitated into the water and submerged; 
that, as soon as deponent came to the surface, he heard deceased 
say to him, " Catch the boat," and did not at the time think 
that deceased was alarmed; but, being rather a poor swimmer, 
instead of trying to save the boat, he began to swim for the 
bank, thinking that deceased would either follow or would 
cling to the boat, and accordingly did not look around till he 
had reached the bank, when, to his surprise and alarm, he dis- 
covered that deceased was neither following him, nor clinging 
to the batteau, nor could be seen anywhere; and the convic- 
tion at once settled upon deponent that deceased had drowned 
and sunk, for the river was open, and at least one hundred and 
fifty yards wide, and not a sign of life or motion in the water 
could be seen anywhere around. Deponent crawled out on the 
root of a tree which had been blown down in the river, against 
the top of which the batteau made a temporary halt, and he 
walked out on the tree for the purpose of fastening the batteau ; 
but before he could reach it, it had become loose and floated 
down the river. Deponent also says that he was not more than 
half a minute in effecting his escape from the water, and that 
deceased, from the position he occupied in the boat (being on 
the middle seat), was thrown some ten or fifteen feet farther out 
in the stream than deponent was, so that it was impossible that 
deceased could have reached the bank sooner than deponent 
reached it, and there was no place in the river for him to have 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 105 

concealed himself, nor even under the batteau, as that was too 
full of water when it overturned, to leave air enough under- 
neath for a man to have lived in. Therefore deponent is con- 
firmed in the conviction that first seized him, and now feels and 
knows, from all the circumstances, that deceased could only 
have drowned and sunk before deponent reached the bank. 
Deponent further says that, so soon as he recovered suf^ciently 
from his fright and bewilderment to realize his condition and 
the state of affairs, he began to cry for help and to halloo for the 
companions he had so lately left, to wit, the said Curtis Hum- 
phries and Joseph C. Bryan, but that he found himself so badly 
hurt, he could with great difficulty cry loud enough to be heard 
by them, though not more than a quarter of a mile distant; 
that, failing to make them hear him, he ran as fast as he could 
to them, and at once communicated the nature of the accident 
which had happened; and that himself and the said Joseph 
C. Bryan immediately ran back to the place of the accident 
and at once commenced a search down the river along the bank, 
but they could neither see nor hear anything except the batteau, 
which was found stopped about half a mile below. 

Deponent further says, that in all his acquaintance and deal- 
ings with said deceased, which have been long and varied, he 
has ever known deceased to be an honest and upright man 
and dealer, and a gentleman of high tone of character and 
integrity of purpose, and that the community as well as his 
family have sustained a loss. 

Deponent further says, he knows deceased owned, in said 
county of Scriven, between fifteen hundred and two thousand 
acres of good land, several hundreds of which were improved 
and in a state of cultivation. 

Next follows the affidavit of Joseph C. Bryan, the eldest son 
of Captain Martin L. Bryan, twenty-nine years of age. This 
eldest son of his father proceeds to corroborate the statement of 
the preceding affiant, and tells how they assisted the deceased to 
survey the land, and then caught, cooked, and ate a mess of fish, 
after which deceased and Owens left them in the manner which 
has been related, first enjoining deponent in the meanwhile to 
catch bait for his uncle Curt (meaning the said Curtis Hum- 
phries), who was still desirous of fishing, but was too aged and 



106 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

unwieldy to procure bait. Some time after they had gone, 
deponent heard the " feeble shouts " of Owens, but was not 
alarmed by them, as they did not sound to him like cries for 
help, and therefore, " without heeding them, he continued to 
catch bait" until Owens arrived in person with "the start- 
ling intelligence that the batteau had capsized, precipitating 
both himself and deceased into the water, and that deceased, 
he felt certain, was drowned, while he had barely and with 
great difficulty escaped." Then this filial deponent, under the 
wildness of his bewilderment, started off " without loss of time, 
followed by Owens, who pointed out to him the spot of cap- 
size." And then followed a fruitless search along the river bank, 
at the same time "hallooing constantly, so that, if deceased 
were not dead, he might hear them and bring them to his 
relief." But no response from " deceased " was heard by " de- 
ponent," and " night being close at hand, they abandoned their 
efforts and returned to their homes." The next day depo- 
nent, assisted by neighbors and friends, resumed the search, 
"and grappled and dragged and fished and felt for the body 
of said deceased," but without recovering the body or finding 
any trace thereof. Deponent then explained wherefore the 
body could not be found upon such a river bottom as the place 
"where said accident happened." "The locality is thickly 
crammed and studded with large fallen trees, so that the logs 
and brush form an almost impenetrable network," and the 
neighbors and friends finally arrived at the conclusion " that a 
body therein lodged could hardly rise, unless by the motion and 
concussion of the water, caused by the passage of a steam- 
boat." Deponent, at great length, proceeded to point out the 
conformity to rational principles which characterized these con- 
clusions. 

And then, without mental reservation, but knowing whereof 
he doth depose, he further says " nothing was seen of said body 
and no tidings had of it until the evening of the i6th of June, 
when it was seen in the Savannah River, about eight or ten 
miles below the place of accident, by a portion of the crew of 
the steamer Swan, on her down trip from Augusta to Savannah." 
The next day after " it was seen " as aforesaid, " deponent and 
his three brothers, Robert, William, and Paul, set out in quest 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 107 

of said body," they going " down the river till they came to the 
spot or place where said body had been seen the evening pre- 
vious, and looked and examined closely for it, but that it was 
not there, nor could they see it around there, nor even find any 
trace or vestige of it;" whereupon deponent proceeds to en- 
lighten us why it could not be found. Again he explains how 
the concussion of the water caused by the passage of the steam- 
boat must have " loosed the body from its fastening," and it had 
"floated on down the river." They continued the search and 
"were rewarded only with disappointment." Finally they 
arrived at some further " conclusions." Not another passing 
steamboat " with its concussion of the water " this time. " Con- 
cluding that the body must either have been pecked open by the 
buzzards and again sunk, or was devoured by an alligator or 
some other carnivorous inhabitant of the water, and that in either 
case further search down the river would be fruitless, the bat- 
teau was placed in the wagon and all parties started for home." 
Meeting with other parties, " deponent was advised to make a 
still more extended and protracted search," and he returned to 
make " a closer inspection," but finally fell back upon his strong 
point, his "conclusions," which are summarized as follows: 
" All of which facts lead deponent to the belief, and confirm 
him in the conclusions before mentioned, either that said body 
was pecked open by the buzzards and again sunk, or it was 
devoured by an alligator (of which there are multitudes in the 
river), or by some other animal." 

Deponent then goes on to relate how " said deceased was not 
a good swimmer, and was rather fearful of deep water, and was 
usually very cautious and particular when out in the river in a 
batteau." Finally, and in conclusion, he " does not know how 
to account for the mishap, except that it was one of those unac- 
countable accidents which, while they are under the superin- 
tendence of an All-wise Providence, seem still to be the result 
of chance in that they are without assignable cause, controlled 
by no fixed or known laws or rules of conduct, or action, or 
sequence, and are as likely to overtake the most prudent as the 
most reckless." 

The aged " Uncle Curt " (meaning the said Curtis Hum- 
phries) was next brought forward as the deponent who could 



108 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

testify " that he was intimately acquainted with Captain Bryan, 
deceased, and had known him since his infancy." He then 
repeated the story of the survey of the swamp lands which 
belonged to the deceased, and of his " partaking of a repast," 
after which the venerable deponent wanted to go home, " but 
deceased begged him to wait a short while until deceased and 
said Owens " could first go after the boat, as has been related 
by the preceding witnesses. After they had been gone awhile 
this deponent heard the hallooing of Owens, but he was not dis- 
turbed thereby, as he " imagined they were hallooing at some- 
thing they saw in the river — ^perhaps a deer or an alligator 
with something it had caught." Uncle Curt is not prolix in his 
deposition, but desires to put himself on record by saying that, 
" from everything that transpired under his own observation, 
he was fully impressed with the conviction that said deceased 
was drowned." 

The " neighbors and friends of the deceased " who " grap- 
pled, dragged, fished, and felt for the body of said deceased," 
personally and individually entered their appearance, and in 
their several depositions set forth at great length their knowl- 
edge of "the misfortune which had that day befallen the 
aforesaid deceased." 

A glowing tribute to the elevated moral character and the 
unswerving integrity of " the aforesaid deceased," appears upon 
the record of these depositions, while " in all his dealings and 
business, deceased was plain, open, straightforward, honest, 
fair, correct, and exact; never appearing to want that which 
was not rightfully his own, and rather ready to yield a little than 
to demand too much, or to contend about a trifle." 

Next come forward the three employes on board the steamer 
Swan, who relate what they know of the " deceased aforesaid." 

They testify that they were acquainted with the circumstan- 
ces of the accidental drowning, and one of them, " a person of 
color, had been directed to keep a lookout for said body." At 
a place " about twelve miles by water below the place of ac- 
cident, deponent had his attention directed to a dead body 
under the willows. When he first looked at said body it was 
lying face downward; he saw the back part of the head of it, 
and he firmly believes it was a human head. And deponent 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 109 

believes, from all the circumstances of the case, that said body 
was the body of said deceased, the said Captain Martin L. 
Bryan." This colored deponent " further says that said steamer 
was at the time going very rapidly, so that only a very short 
time was allowed for beholding said body." The attention of 
the second employe being directed ''to a dead body fastened 
in the river under a willow," expresses his belief that it was a 
human body. He further goes on to explain that, as " he had 
not heard of any one else drowning in the Savannah River, nor 
had he since heard that any one else than the said Captain 
Martin L. Bryan was so drowned," ergo the " said body, thus 
seen as aforesaid, was the body of said deceased, the said 
Captain Martin L. Bryan." This logical deponent " did not 
see said body till the waves of the boat had reached it and were 
moving it, so that nothing about it could be distinctly defined 
by deponent." He was able to " define " some buzzards near 
by, and was informed, " the buzzards were on the body pecking 
and devouring it when first seen, but which the waves had 
frightened off before it was seen by deponent." Deponent fur- 
ther says that " so impressed was he with the conviction that 
said body was the body of said deceased, that he immediately 
ran upon deck and tried to prevail upon the purser of said 
steamer to use his influence with the captain of said steamer to 
stop and take up said body; but the purser said deponent had 
as much influence with the captain as he the purser had ; where- 
upon deponent at once proceeded to the captain, who was also 
aware of the circumstances attending the death of said deceased 
and also knew that deceased's body had not then been found, 
and informed him of the discovery which had just been made, 
and tried to prevail upon him to stop, being then but a short 
distance below, and pick it up; that the captain asked depo- 
nent if he was certain and knew it was a human body and the 
body of said deceased, to which deponent replied, that though 
he felt certain, he did not positively and absolutely know it to 
be the body of said deceased; that the captain then said as de- 
ponent was not absolutely certain, he would not stop," but 
proposed instead to give information at the next landing. And 
so that " aforesaid deceased " was left to the tender mercies of 
the buzzards, the alligators, " or some other carnivorous inhabi- 
tant of the water." 



no MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

One other " deponent " was produced and sworn, and made 
known that on the 19th of June (three days subsequent to the 
discovery from the steamer), while he was on his way up the 
river, at a certain point "he discovered a dead body in the 
river, which he is convinced and knows was a human body; 
but being alone, and feeling a timidity and hesitancy in ap- 
proaching a dead body alone, without company, he did not 
then go up to it." This timid deponent further says that 
" buzzards were sitting near and devouring said body, which 
seemed to be much swollen and was floating high in the 
water." Being familiar with the circumstances of the drown- 
ing of the " aforesaid deceased," and knowing that the body 
had not yet been recovered, this timid and hesitating depo- 
nent " obtained within him the impression at once, that the said 
body thus seen as aforesaid was the body of said deceased." 

To the underwriters receiving these preliminary proofs of 
death, they presented the appearance of a studied effort, on 
the part of the person submitting them, to explain away sus- 
picion, and present a plausible view of his case. It required 
but the superficial glance of an experienced eye to observe 
something wrong. Just prior to his mysterious disappearance, 
Captain Bryan had made his last will and testament, and had 
named his son Robert B., the law student, as executor thereof. 
The busy and tireless hand of the embryo la^vyer appeared 
early in advocacy of the claims arising under the several poli- 
cies. He addressed by letter the local agents of the several 
companies, as follows: 

Savannah, Georgia, June 27, 1867. 

Dear Sir — As executor of the will of my father, Martin L. Bryan, 
it becomes my sad duty to announce to you the intelligence of his 
death, which occurred by drowning near his plantation, in Scriven 
County, on Savannah River, on the loth inst. The circumstances of 
the accident are these, as I have learned them: 

Mr. Owens, a near neighbor, and my father, after a day of jfishing, 
were removing their boat from one point in the river to another, 
when the boat was capsized by running on a snag. Mr. Owens, with 
much difficulty, and in a badly hurt condition, succeeded in getting 
out; but Pa, alas! was not so fortunate. And what is still more 
distressing, we have never been able to recover the body. We have 
made every effort to recover it, but without success. It was seen by 
the crew of a steamboat on Sunday afterward, about nine miles 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. HI 

below the place of accident; but, through want of a small boat, the 
captain said he could not take it up. 

I should have informed you sooner, but have been by rain and 
other causes unavoidably detained away from the city much longer 
than I anticipated when first I heard of the accident. I desire you 
to communicate with the insurance company in which my father's 
life was insured, and let me know their decision. I am aware that 
the facts of the case will have to be submitted by affidavit, and I will 
proceed to submit them after hearing from you. The proof I think 

will be satisfactory. 

Very respectfully, 

R. B. Bryan. 

An agent of one of the companies wrote to R. B. Bryan for 
additional information relative to the amount of insurance, and 
received the following in reply: 

Savannah, Ga., August 28, 1867. 
Dear Sir — In compliance with request, I transmit you the names 
of the companies in which my father's life was insured, and the 
amounts in each. 

Travelers of Hartford $40,000 

Knickerbocker Life 10,000 

United States Casualty 10,000 

Accident of Columbus 10,000 

National Travelers of New York 10,000 

You will naturally ask the question why did he take so much 
accident insurance, and so little life? a question which I am not able 
fully to answer. But, in partial answer, I would first say that Pa, 
though by no means wealthy, was, previous to his being stripped 
by the war, independently well off in the world, and after the for- 
tunes of war had swept off most of his means, to a mind like his 
the idea of leaving his family nothing at his death was almost intol- 
erable, and thus he sought insurance. He was almost wholly ignorant 
of the nature and character of it, as you will recollect on the day 
he first entered your office. Finding that accident insurance was 
much cheaper than life insurance, and believing that it would be 
some time ere the course of events would take him off, being a 
man of strong and hearty constitution, he contented himself, for the 
time being, with ten thousand dollars of life insurance, but took acci- 
dent insurance to the amount of forty thousand. Being at that time 
unacquainted with the matter of compensation, he took only ten thou- 
sand with compensation. Finding afterwards that compensation was 
just what he wanted, as himself and family were, in a great measure, 
dependent upon his own individual exertions, and that, should those 



112 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

exertions through any cause cease, they would become dependent 
upon others, an idea or a possibihty that was always galling to him, 
he petitioned in all subsequent insurance for compensation — in fact, 
compensation was the prime cause of his seeking additional insurance. 

I am, very respectfully, 

R. B. Bryan. 

Again writing at the agent while endeavoring to appease the 
spectre suspicion! He had not been called upon to explain 
the motives of his father in obtaining the insurance. 

Upon investigation it was soon ascertained that " the proofs " 
which Mr. R. B. Bryan thought would be " satisfactory " were 
the product of an ingenious though inexperienced hand at 
manipulating evidence. Nor did the moral character or the 
domestic relations of the " deceased aforesaid " appear credit- 
ably in the light of further inquiry. It will be noticed that there 
had been but one eye-witness to the "accident," and he was 
found to be a worthless, drunken pauper. He was sober at 
times, but only when unable to get the wherewith to buy whis- 
key. After the " drowning " he went at once to a store, where 
he purchased two quarts of whiskey, being able to pay for it — a 
fact which was too unusual to escape observation and comment. 
He had a glorious drunk that afternoon, and the next week he 
received from Savannah two gallons more of whiskey, which 
some good friend had sent him. From the time of its receipt 
until the last drop was consumed, he was too happy to trouble 
himself about the " deceased," and naturally he was excused 
from being a party to the search for the body. At that time, 
too, he had in his household a woman who had gone there with 
her illegitimate child, then about two years of age, the paternity 
of which she had laid at the door of the " deceased aforesaid," 
and on account of which domestic irregularity it was rumored 
that the lawful wife of the " deceased " threatened to leave his 
bed and board. Notwithstanding this, the general character 
of the Captain as a business man stood favorably with the 
community. 

After a while, as the Investigation proceeded, it became evi- 
dent that the executor of his father's last will and testament 
began to be more and more apprehensive. The spectre was 
continually presenting itself to be explained away until it could 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 113 

be no longer endured ; then, after lying some six months among 
the snags, pecked by buzzards, devoured by alligators and 
other carnivorous animals, the " deceased," through " earnest 
entreaties and united appeals," was induced to return to the 
bosom of his family. 

A rumor of the wanderer's return reaching the Savannah 
agent, he wrote and mailed a letter addressed as follows : 

Savannah, Ga., Jan. 21, 1868. 
Mr. R. B. Bryan : 

Dear Sir — I learn by rumor that your father, M. L. Bryan, has 
returned to his home in Scriven County — is it correct? I ask this 
as agent of the insurance company, and in view of the fact that proofs 
of loss have been handed into this office by you. Please give this 
matter your attention, and oblige. 

Which letter elicited the following reply: 

Savannah, Ga., January 21, 1868. 
Dear Sir — Yours of present date is received. In reply, I am glad 
to be able to inform you that my father is again at home, where I 
trust he will be allowed to remain in peace and safety. I make no 
comment, for the present, upon his absence or return, further than to 
say that the latter was induced only by the earnest entreaties and 
united appeals of his family — but for which he might still be an exile 
from home. I hope such entreaties and appeals may not be rewarded 
with another forced separation. 

I have not seen him, but my information is positive and not to be 
doubted. Any information I can impart, consistent with the present 
uncertain state of affairs in relation to this matter, I am ready to give. 

I am, very respectfully, 

R. B. Bryan. 

It thus appears the " deceased aforesaid " was induced to re- 
turn home "only by the earnest entreaties and united appeals 
of his family;" which would seem to indicate that his family, 
including the executor of his father's will and who made up the 
proofs of death, knew of " deceased's " whereabouts, and held 
communication with him In spite of the buzzards and alligators. 
And mark the hint at " another forced separation " (the em- 
phasis is his own). Was the first separation "forced?" Does 
the sensitive conscience of the legal-minded son suggest that 
such an attempt at wholesale robbing of insurance companies 
deserves a "forced separation" for a term of years in sonic 
state institution? 



114 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

Prior to the foregoing correspondence, information of the 
exile's return had reached the home office of the Travelers 
Insurance Company, through the following telegram and cor- 
respondence : 

Savannah, Ga., Jan. 13, 1868. 
Rodney Dennis, Esq., Secretary Travelers Insurance Company: 

Martin L. Bryan is at home, alive and well. You did not pay soon 
enough. 

In due course of mail came the following letter: 

Savannah, Ga., Jan. 14, 1868. 
Rodney Dennis, Esq., Secretary Travelers Insurance Company: 

Dear Sir —I telegraphed you that Bryan was alive and well at 
home. You know Ponce de Leon found the waters of perpetual 
youth in Florida, and it is reported that Captain Bryan has been in 
Florida. Now, he either floated through the rivers, sounds, and bays 
to that spring, and came to life, after being seven months dead, or 
else he has been permitted to come back and find out why the $80,000 
insurance on his life was not paid. If you had only paid up sooner, 
his unquiet spirit jnight have rested peacefully in its watery bed. 
It is either a warning to insurance companies to be more prompt in 
payment of losses, and not oblige a man to come back and collect 
the insurance on his own life ; or else it proves, that to secure the 
return of departed ones, they must be drowned in Savannah River 
and go to Florida. 

CHARLES AND MARTHA. 

In the summer of 1870, Charles McCormick, the hero of 
this narrative, was twenty-four years of age, of good physique, 
being nearly six feet in height, weighing one hundred and 
eighty pounds, and altogether a lusty specimen of the Green 
Mountain Boy. Early in the history of the late war he enlisted 
as a private soldier in the 7th Regiment Vermont Volunteer 
Infantry, and, creditably serving out his full term of enlistment, 
obtained an honorable discharge. In 1867 he married a highly 
respectable young woman, and not long afterwards opened a 
general insurance agency in Ogdensburg, St. Lawrence County, 
New York. With the companies he represented, his business 
relations were favorable, while his social standing was not ques- 
tioned in the community where he had chosen his residence. 
Later developments showed him unworthy of the respect and 
confidence in which he was held at the date of a mysterious 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 115 

disappearance, an event which occurred on a hot summer after- 
noon in the month of August, 1870. His wife held a poHcy 
written upon his Hfe by the Travelers Insurance Company. 
The " proofs of death " submitted by her, in support of her claim 
for the principal sum insured, sufficiently explain the manner 
of his mysterious departure. 

According to the evidence thus submitted, the deposition of 
one H. A. Rockwell informs us " that for several years last past 
he has resided and now resides in the town of Massena, St. 
Lawrence County, N. Y., and that he knew Charles McCor- 
mick, late of Ogdensburg in said county, and last saw said 
McCormick at the residence of this deponent in Massena, 
under the following circumstances. On the 19th day of Au- 
gust, 1870, said McCormick came to the residence of this de- 
ponent with a horse and buggy, and informed this deponent 
that he, the said McCormick, wished to leave his horse and 
buggy with this deponent, and to borrow this deponent's boat 
to go to Cornwall, across the St. Lawrence River in Canada, 
and would return it to deponent on the Saturday or Monday 
following. He declared his intention of proceeding from Corn- 
wall, by rail, to Prescott, and from Prescott, by ferry, to Og- 
densburg, and return to Massena over the same route the Sat- 
urday or Monday following. That this deponent took charge 
of said horse and buggy, as requested by McCormick, to keep 
until his intended return, and let his, this deponent's boat — a 
skiff containing two oars, one paddle and a tow-line — to said 
McCormick, to go with it to Cornwall. That, at the time 
aforesaid, and before McCormick left this deponent's residence, 
he informed this deponent that he, McCormick, had an en- 
gagement to keep at Ogdensburg, and had promised to meet 
a person there from Canton, in said county, on business, and 
had sent word to said person that he, McCormick, would meet 
him at Canton on Saturday. That, in pursuit of such purpose 
and intention, as deponent beheves, McCormick, with depo- 
nent's boat, oars, etc., as aforesaid stated, left deponent's resi- 
dence to go to Cornwall, at about the hour of six o'clock in the 
evening of said 19th day of August, and that deponent has 
not since seen nor heard of said McCormick. Deponent 
further says, that on Monday, the 22d day of August, 1870, 



lie MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

and after the time fixed for the return of the boat, deponent 
went to Cornwall to look after the same, and found the said 
boat with only one oar and the tow-line therein, about two rods 
below the wharf at Cornwall, where said boat was lodged 
against the shore, and not tied or fastened, but lying as having 
been, apparently, blown or drifted to the shore by wind or cur- 
rent. And deponent further says, the usual route of ferriage 
from Massena to Cornwall, and that which McCormick pro- 
posed to take, is difficult, and to persons inexperienced, some- 
what dangerous to navigate; and that the route from Massena 
to Ogdensburg as proposed to be taken by McCormick, is fre- 
quently pursued by persons travelling from Massena to Ogdens- 
burg, and is the only route by rail for any considerable part of 
the distance. Deponent further says that McCormick, in his 
attempted journey across the river, would not be likely to arrive 
at Cornwall, if successful and meeting no accident, until after 
dark on said 19th day of August; and that deponent has never 
found the oar and paddle missing from the boat." 

In the furtherance of these " proofs," Mrs. McCormick, wife 
of the late Charles, and now his widow, subscribes to an affi- 
davit of great length, wherein she gives a detailed account of 
her knowledge of her husband's usual business habits, and of 
his movements during the three or four days immediately pre- 
ceding his disappearance. She mentions the date of her mar- 
riage to McCormick, and says that she '' resided with him/ 
continuously and happily, as his wife, thereafter." It appears 
that she and her husband were boarding in Ogdensburg with a 
Mrs. Kellogg, and that they left their boarding-place to go to 
the residence of her father, in an adjoining town, where she in- 
tended to remain until her husband should rejoin her there, on 
his return from one of his usual travelling tours, and convey 
her thence to their home in Ogdensburg. On the following 
day, the 15th day of August, 1870, McCormick left her at her 
father's residence, driving away with his horse and buggy, hav- 
ing first declared his intention of going to the several villages 
mentioned by name in her affidavit. She further says she has 
not since seen nor heard from her husband, directly or in- 
directly, and has had no information of or concerning him, ex- 
cept that derived from her father and others who have been in 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 117 

pursuit of facts touching his fate. She states that she " received 
one Hnen coat, one Hnen bosom, and one tape measure from 
her father, on or about the 26th day of August, 1870, and that 
said articles and a small hand-satchel and contents were the 
only articles taken away by the said Charles, when she last saw 
him, and that said satchel and whatever it may have contained 
has not been returned to her, and has not been found, to her 
knowledge and belief." In her affidavit she further says Mc- 
Cormick " left at their boarding-place his entire personal ward- 
robe not necessarily in use by him when she last saw him, 
which, together with the articles returned to her, and the horse, 
harness, and buggy used by McCormick, one cutter, bells, 
sleigh-robe and utensils, and articles used by him in taking care 
of his horse, and the furniture in the rooms occupied by herself 
and her husband at said Mrs. Kellogg's, constituted the entire 
personal property of the said Charles when she last saw him; 
and that he had no real estate at the time of his disappearance." 
We next have the affidavit of Mrs. McCormick's father, who 
corroborates the statements of Mrs. McCormick and of Mr. 
Rockwell, so far as his knowledge of the facts enables him to. 
This affiant further says that " early in the week following the 
19th day of August, 1870, he was informed by telegram from 
Massena of the disappearance of the said Charles, and of the 
finding of the boat mentioned in Rockwell's affidavit; and that 
on the morning succeeding the receipt of telegram he went to 
Massena, and from Massena to Cornwall with said Rockwood 
in search of the said Charles, and spent the remainder of the 
week in such search without acquiring any knowledge or infor- 
mation of said Charles's whereabouts, or of his being alive or 
dead. That he, together with his son and Louis Rockwood, on 
Tuesday of the week following, proceeded to Massena and 
Cornwall and the vicinity, to make further and complete search 
for said Charles, and to ascertain what may have happened to 
him; and made all examinations and inquiries believed to be 
effectual for the purpose of ascertaining such facts as could 
throw light upon the disappearance and whereabouts of said 
Charles, whether living or dead; and in the pursuit of such 
purpose visited the shores of islands of said St. Lawrence River, 
for considerable distances, and made inquiries of persons liv- 



118 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

ing in such vicinity relative thereto, and pursued said river 
and vicinity in such search and inquiry as far as the city of 
Montreal and back, during an absence of seven or eight days. 
That he was informed and believes that said Charles was not 
seen on the Canadian side of the river on the said 19th day of 
August, 1870, by any person or persons who in the ordinary 
course of business and travel would have seen him had he 
landed and pursued his way to Ogdensburg via Prescott, as 
stated in the affidavit of said Rockwood. That he was in- 
formed by the bridge-tender who was present at and in atten- 
dance on the drawbridge that spans the Cornwall Canal in the 
line of travel from the shore of the said river to Cornwall, that 
said Charles was well known to said bridge-tender, and that said 
Charles did not cross said bridge on the 19th day of August, 
1870, before or after dark; and he was also informed by the 
ticket agent of the Grand Trunk Railway, that said Charles was 
not at Cornwall on said 19th day of August, or afterward, to 
his knowledge. He was also further informed by the driver of 
the omnibus running to the depot of said railway, and present 
there on the evening of said 19th day of August, that he was 
well acquainted with said Charles, and saw nothing of him at 
the depot on the arrival of the train on its way to Prescott; 
and affiant was informed by several persons in Cornwall ac- 
quainted with said Charles that nothing had been seen of him 
there, to their knowledge, on the day last aforesaid. And fur- 
ther, since receipt of the telegram, this affiant has spent more 
than three months, and has expended in cash over $300, for 
the purpose of ascertaining the fate or whereabouts of said 
Charles, without success." 

Mrs. Kellogg, with whom McCormick and wife boarded in 
Ogdensburg, was produced and sworn in further support of the 
claim arising under the insurance policy. From this affidavit 
it appears that, three days after leaving his wife at her father's 
residence, McCormick returned to Ogdensburg, making his 
appearance at Mrs. Kellogg's on the morning of the i8th of 
August. Mrs. Kellogg says he came with his horse and buggy, 
breakfasted with her, and then drove away to attend a funeral. 
Before leaving he informed her that he had an engagement to 
meet a person from Canton on Friday morning, and would 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 119 

return to her residence with his wife on Friday or Saturday 
following. She further says that McCormick and wife boarded 
with her for about a year prior to and up to the time of his 
disappearance, and that during the period of her acquaintance 
with them they lived agreeably and happily together. 

Upon the foregoing evidence, together with other circum- 
stances of a corroborative character, Mrs. McCormick hon- 
estly believed her husband to be deceased, and that the time and 
manner of his death were as clearly indicated as evidence of a 
purely presumptive nature could determine. This evidence 
was forwarded to the insurance company five months after the 
disappearance, and little doubt existed in the minds of the com- 
munity, at that time, that Charles McCormick had been acci- 
dentally drowned. But the company already had had its sus- 
picions awakened as to the genuineness of the drowning, and 
had instituted some inquiries which led to a belief that Charles 
was not lying in the cold embrace of the St. Lawrence. 

It was ascertained that when McCormick returned to his 
boarding-place, on the morning of the i8th of August, he donned 
his best clothes. True, he was going to a funeral, but he did 
not come back afterwards and exchange the suit. He attended 
the funeral, after which he loitered about until afternoon, when 
he left, saying he was going to Massena to make collections. 
On his way there he was met by an acquaintance, who spent a 
while with him, and had an opportunity to observe that Mc- 
Cormick had a considerable sum of money in his possession. 
He spent the night in Massena, ostensibly at the hotel there, 
but it was known that he was at the house of a certain woman 
in that vicinity, sufficiently long to occasion comment by some 
uncharitable neighbors. The next morning, August 19th, he 
again called at the woman's house and bade the family good- 
by. He spent the day in loafing about, and then, towards 
evening, drove to the house of Mr. Rockwood, where he left his 
horse and buggy and procured the boat, as set forth in Rock- 
wood's deposition. He had proposed to return to Ogdensburg 
by rail through Canada, when he might have driven back there 
as easily as he had driven from there, the distance being about 
thirty miles. It was pretty certain, too, there was *' a woman 
in the case," and a woman not his wife. 



120 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

At this stage of the narration we may introduce Martha, a 
comely young woman who had been deserted by her husband 
while living in a distant Western State. As a grass-widow she 
had been successful, having lived an adventurous life and had 
accumulated money among the gamblers and speculators who 
followed the construction of the Pacific Railroad. Martha had 
a sister and other relatives residing in the small town of Gouver- 
neur, which is quite near the place where McCormick was last 
seen, and to this home, in her native village, Martha returned 
from her wanderings. She was living here at the time of Mc- 
Cormick's disappearance, and it was well known by certain 
persons that she and Charles had been on intimate rela- 
tions. Martha's sister was a little piqued with the fact that 
such relations existed, as, prior to Martha's return home, 
Charles had been kindly attentive to herself. So the sister was 
inclined to talk with the special who was in pursuit of knowl- 
edge under difficulties, and she remembered how Martha had 
told her, just before the happening of the drowning, that 
" Charles was going to leave this little town, and would keel up 
on the bottom of the St. Lawrence River in less than a week," 
after which he would " go West," and there let his moustache 
grow, so that no one would know him. Furthermore, she had 
reason to believe that Martha had been in correspondence 
with Charles since his disappearance. She had seen and 
read part of a letter which Martha was then writing to " dear 
Charley," dated September 9th, and the sister was sure that, 
up to the date of McCormick's disappearance, Martha had 
no correspondent by the name of Charley. The village post- 
office clerk remembered how Martha had wanted him to get 
an Ogdensburg newspaper of the next week, for her. He did 
so, and when she called the next week for it, she directed 
his attention to an account in the paper of McCormick's acci- 
dental drowning. Martha's sister enlarged upon this fact, and 
remembered that Martha brought the paper home, and show- 
ing the account of the drowning, said, '' Did I not tell you 
he was going to keel up on the bottom of the St. Lawrence 
River?" 

Some weeks after McCormick's disappearance, after all ex- 
citement had subsided, Martha went West again. Exactly 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 121 

where she went or how she Hved during the ensuing ten months, 
is not fully known. 

As the matter thus stood, the insurance people believed that 
a demand to recover under the policy would not be urged 
against the company, and for a while nothing further was done 
to solve the mystery. The claim was supposed to have been 
virtually abandoned, when, the following spring, the company's 
attention was again called to the matter by the legal adviser 
of Mrs. McCormick. 

There had been periodical rumors of the discovery of Mc- 
Cormick's body, and one of the reports, which seemed to call 
for an investigation at the hands of the insurance company, 
may be alluded to at this point. The skeleton of a man was 
found on the Canada shore, in May, 1871, and it was an- 
nounced that these were the bones of the missing Charles. 
But an examination disclosed the fact that the bones were those 
of an elderly person, which fact the numerous gray hairs found 
upon the skull fully confirmed. Charles had never seen one- 
half the number of winters that had passed over the head 
of this skeleton. It was observed that these remains were 
clothed in a heavy, thick, woolen suit, over which was a heavy 
broadcloth overcoat, closely buttoned up, indicating wintry 
weather at the time this person perished; whereas McCormick 
disappeared in August, upon one of the warmest days of that 
particularly warm month. 

About this time, the latter part of May, 1871, some new 
facts came to the knowledge of the insurance company, which 
had the tendency to divert attention from the information which 
had been obtained from Martha's relatives. As the facts 
herein alluded to came to the company confidentially, and with 
the request that the particulars as to how they were obtained 
should not be divulged, we are unable to publish that which 
would otherwise be an interesting feature of this story. It will 
have to sufifiice our present purpose to say there existed good 
reasons for believing that the missing Charles was then in 
Girard, Kansas, or somewhere in that vicinity, within the 
knowledge of one Henry E. Perkins, a resident of that place. 
Upon inquiry, it was ascertained that this Perkins had been an 
army comrade of McCormick, they having enlisted in the same 



122 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

regiment and company, where they served and messed together 
nearly four years. It was decided to send an experienced 
agent of the insurance company to Girard for further develop- 
ments. Accordingly, a pro tern, detective made his appearance, 
incog., in Girard, towards the latter part of June, and at once 
entered upon his task. Some two or three weeks were spent 
in a fruitless search, during which time an acquaintance with 
Perkins was formed, but only to learn nothing satisfactory con- 
cerning the missing McCormick. Perkins finally suspected the 
purpose of the agent's visit to Girard, and thereupon, seeking 
a private interview, unbosomed his suspicions and made known 
his entire ignorance and innocence of the matter. He feel- 
ingly expressed his willingness to furnish any and every aid or 
assistance in his power which would lead to the discovery of 
McCormick, if living. Whether Perkins's statements were true 
or false, it was now clear that nothing further was to be accom- 
plished in that direction. The agent therefore returned east- 
ward at once, and then took up the threads which linked the 
name of Charles with the now missing Martha. 

His first effort was to find the whereabouts of Martha. She 
was traced to Chicago, and believed to be in that city. It took 
several weeks to trace her exact locality, but this was finally 
accomplished through letters addressed to her by a third party 
with whom she was acquainted. It was ascertained that she 
was keeping a cigar store in the city, and the detective soon 
found it convenient to buy his tobacco of her. In due time an 
interview with her led to an agreement on her part to furnish 
the company's agent with satisfactory and conclusive proof that 
Charles was not dead, but now living. She said he was living 
under an assumed name, but was not then residing with her, 
nor in Chicago. Finally, upon terms agreed upon between 
herself and the agent, she placed in the latter's hands four 
letters, dated respectively, August 23, 1870, September 6, 1870, 
October 24, 1870, and November 10, 1870. Accompanying 
these letters is Martha's statement, written by herself in a neat, 
business-like hand, from which we copy the following extract: 

.... These letters were written by Charles McCormick, formerly 
of Ogdensburg, N. Y. The first three reached me at Gouverneur, 
N. Y., and the last named at Adams House, Chicago. I have had 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 128 

no correspondence with him since the last letter herein named. The 
assumed name of C. H. Mack was understood between us before his 
disappearance from home in August, 1870. 

This statement, signed by Martha's full name, is dated, 
"Chicago, August 25, 1871;" a little more than one year sub- 
sequent to McCormick's disappearance. 

The first of these letters was written five days after his dis- 
appearance, at a time when his worthy father-in-law was " ex- 
amining the shores of the islands in the St. Lawrence River, in 
search of the body of the said Charles." It was received by 
Martha while at her home in Gouverneur, N. Y., where she then 
was, and to which she replied by mail in accordance with pre- 
existing arrangements. This verifies the statements made by 
her sister concerning this alleged correspondence. The follow- 
ing is a verbatim copy: 

Omoro, Wis., Aug-. 23d, 1870. 

My dear Mattie — I arrived at this place yesterday. I can't say 
as yet how long I may stay here, but think I will leave to-morrow 
morning. Now, dear, I can't write much, not but that my desire is 
good enough, but you know I am in rather a sad plight. I wish 
you were here, that you could be a source of comfort; you know I 
am of a lonely nature if left alone. You asked me to write you 
plainly; I will try to do so, and in a very few words. / want you to 
join me at the earliest opportunity. Now, I may not be able to send 
for you as soon as I would like, but believe me, Mattie, I will use 
every efifort to advance the project. I want you to write me before 
you sleep, after getting this address. 

C. H. Mack. 

Neenah, Winnebago Co., Wisconsin. My love to you, sweet one. 
Write me plainly so I may understand you. 

C H. Mack. 

P. S. Wednesday, 3 o'clk, P. M. Send your letters to Oshkosh, 
Winnebago Co., Wis., P. O. Box No. 318. A kiss from C. H. M. 

The second letter, written soon afterwards, reads as follows: 

Oshkosh, Wis., Sept. 6th, 1870. 
Dear Friend — Your kind note is at hand. I am pleased to learn 
that you are disposed to favor my proposal. Now, Mattie. remember 
that I am placed in a very peculiar situation. I have reason to believe 
that the people think I am " gone up " — or down, really. I can't say 
which — and it now remains with you to say whether they shall so 
continue to think, or not. For God's sake, Mattie, as you value a 
true friend, do not indicate by either word, look, gesture or action, 



124 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

that you know or even think of me! I am not fearful, Mattie, that 
you would knowingly divulge anything which would injure me. 
Always remember, dear, that I am and will be a friend, even though 
you should conclude in the future to discard me. Do not think I 
make this statement with a view to get your favor. My past life I 
believe to be one of honor towards a friend, and I fail to remember 
a case where I have ever deceived one. 

I hope to receive a good long letter from you ere Saturday eve. 
I am as yet unsettled as regards my future prospect of business. I am 
to remain here one month yet, and then I will very likely know some- 
thing further. I am well, and, for aught I know, happy — but you 
must write me often if you wish to keep me so. Darling, do not make 
a confidant of any one, not even Frank, and at some future day I 
will repay you for your constancy. Hoping you are enjoying life, 

I remain yours, truly and ever, 

C. H. Mack, Box 318. 

The third letter is as follows: 

Janesville, Wis., October 24th, 1870. 
Darling Mattie — I have but just received yours of Septem. 9th, 
and am now in doubt as to your being in Gouverneur. It was in 
consequence of my changing my P. O. address that your kind note 
did not reach me until so late a date. Hoping you will pardon me 
for this, I promise better hereafter. Should have written, but as I 
ordered all letters to be forwarded, and received none, I feared you 
did not write. Forgive my doubting, and write me at this place. 

In haste, 

C. H. M. 

The fourth letter, which was directed to and received at the 
Adams House, Chicago, is as follows : 

Janesville, Wis., Novem. loth, 1870. 

My dear Mattie: Your dear note was duly received: am pleased 
with results, and trust they may continue favorable, yet I assure you, 
everything has not worked so smoothly here. I had to leave Oshkosh 
because of a person being there whom I knew. He, however, did 
not see me. In looking the Directory over I saw his name, and on 
inquiry learned he was the man whom I knew — a lawyer — and I know- 
ing we would surely meet, had to " get up and get." I am sorry to say 
the change has not been a good one for me. I had a good situation 
at that place, but it is not so here. Therefore I am at present writing 
my last from this place; have my ticket in my pocket, and will leave 
to-morrow morning for Kansas. I do not know as yet in what part 
I will locate, but am going to Leavenworth. I am sorry it is so, 
Mattie, but I can not help it. I have not much money, though I 
have not gambled, as you heard. I deny the charge, excepting in 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 125 

one instance to the amount of twelve dollars. I say I regret having 
to leave here so soon, as I wished you to join me before I moved, 
but my means will not allow me to wait. I must get into some- 
thing soon. Oh! Mattie, it is hard when I think how poor I am, 
and consider my situation; and then when I remember what you 
said about money matters, it makes it still harder. Do you remember? 
It was at Frank's. It was this: that you did not care for a man 
unless he had money. I know, dear, you did not mean all this — did 
you? At least I will try and hope not. 

How I would like to call in and take tea with you this evening! 
or rather, I would prefer to have you take tea with me. But as we 
cannot have that pleasure, let us hope for the time to hasten when 
we may be allowed even more — a loving kiss. Be cautious, my own 
darling, that you do not by word, action or look, give them to under- 
stand that you know where I am. But I need not caution you! 
However, you know Frank is sharp, and will guess more than half. 

But I must close, as it is near train time, and I have to go out 
about five miles to another station to-night, and return ready to leave 
in the morning. I wish I could send my love to Jennie, but it 
would not do. 

I am, as ever, yours truly, 

C. H. Mack. 

According to Martha's verbal statement, she and Charles had 
separated, and although he had gone back to Janesville, Wis., it 
was her belief that he was about leaving that place, even if he 
had not already gone. Without unnecessary delay, the agent 
pushed on to that city for the purpose of securing a personal 
interview with McCormick, or, failing in that, to identify him 
with C. H. Mack by means of his photograph, of which the 
agent had copies. On inquiry at the post-ofhce in Janesville, 
it was ascertained that C. H. Mack had a box there; that he 
took a weekly newspaper through the same; that at times he 
came in person to the post-office, and at other times sent for 
his mail; and that he was sometimes seen in company with a 
family living some five or six miles from town. 

Finally, the hunt was narrowed down closely, and on the 
30th day of August, 1871, the agent came upon the long-lost 
Charles, and identified him through his resemblance to the 
photograph, when he at last acknowledged his real name, and 
subscribed to a statement from which we make the following 
extract: 



126 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

. . . . / learn that a claitn has been 7nade out under the pdicy in 
your company, the claimant representing that I a^n dead, and I hereby 
beg to ififor?n you that the claim is not yet good, as I am living and in 
fair health. Charles McCormick. 

During this interview of the agent with McCormick, it was 
ascertained that the latter had been in correspondence with 
Perkins, and had recently written him over his assumed name 
of C. H. Mack. 

A few weeks subsequent to this discovery of McCormick, the 
following letter from him was received at the office of the in- 
surance company: 

Kansas City, Mo., Oct. 9, 1871. 
Secretary OF Travelers Ins. Co., Hartford, Conn.: 

Sir — Having seen one of your general agents, and given him a 
certificate of my being alive, I feel it a duty to myself to give a state- 
ment of the causes and feelings with which I left Ogdensburg, thereby 
causing a claim to be made for the insurance on my life. 

First, I was indebted to the Agricultural Fire Insurance Company, 
Watertown, N. Y., and they wrote my surety that they would hold 
him for my indebtedness — they having before this told me in person 
that they would not hurry me. I thought then, as I belive now, 
that had they let me alone I could have paid all my liabilities in a 
short time. . . . True, this is no good reason for me to base a justi- 
fication of my actions, yet this, in connection with the high estimate 
in which I held my surety, and a knowledge of the trust he had 
placed in me, with a sense of the mortification it would cause me to 
have the matter made public, worked on my mind to so great an 
extent as to entirely unfit me for business. 

There was, as you undoubtedly know, having investigated the 
matter, other reasons which I need not mention. Suffice to say that 
I truly regret the action; but sir, I assure you that I had not then, 
nor have I now, a wish to wrong any person or persons; and I am 
resolved, Providence permitting, to refund any money which may 
have been advanced to or for me. . . . 

Feeling that to write more would be only a rehearsal of matter 
which you understand, I will close. Hoping this may meet your 
favorable consideration, 

I remain, etc., 
Charles McCormick. 

P. S. I have heard that a statement was made to the eflfect that 
I had a large amount of money when I left. I deny, and can prove 
this to be false. Please address 

Charles McCormick, 
Care of Henry E, Perkins ^ Girard, Kansas. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 127 

For aught we know, Charles still luxuriates " out West," and 
mayhap the false and fickle Martha — who sold the secret of 
his hiding-place, regardless of Charles's despairing love-letters 
— has rejoined her lover since her cigar-shop was burned with 
twenty thousand other shops and dwellings, on that lurid night 
of the great fire. This little affair cost the insurance company 
a deal of trouble and considerable expense — all on account of 
Charles's foolish infatuation for Martha. 

DONALD McLEOD. 

An accident policy insuring the life of Donald McLeod, of 
Sherbrooke, Province of Quebec, Dominion of Canada, was 
written December 21, 1875, ^y the Travelers Insurance Com- 
pany. Six days later the company's agent in Sherbrooke gave 
notice that the policy had become a claim, stating, in the course 
of his letter, that " Mr. McLeod went to the river for a barrel 
of water, and half an hour afterwards his team was found at 
the river-bank, his barrel afloat down the stream, and his cap 
floating near the team;" further, that at the "time of writing, 
half past nine p. m., parties were still searching for the body 
in the open water, in boats with torches." 

In the sworn statement of the wife of McLeod, it is stated 
briefly that " the late Donald McLeod lost his life by drowning, 
at the junction of the rivers Magog and St. Francis, on the 
evening of the 27th day of December, 1875." 

The particulars of his sudden departure are more fully given 
in the statement of one Joseph Whitehouse, who on his oath 
said: '* I was in the employ of the late Donald McLeod, 
livery stable keeper in the city of Sherbrooke. Was employed 
as ostler. Thomas Price was employed there as teamster. 
About half-past five o'clock in the evening of the 27th day of 
December, 1875, Price and myself were at work in McLeod's 
stables, under his orders, when he entered the stable, having 
just come from his house, which is near by. I assisted him in 
harnessing a horse to the sleigh with which he had been accus- 
tomed to draw water from the river. The sleigh was coated 
with frozen ice, and the horse was rather an unsteady one. 
He drove to the river and I remained in the stable, intending to 
await his return, as the distance is not far and the trip ought 



128 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

not to have taken him more than fifteen or twenty minutes. 
Mrs. McLeod, however, called me to go to tea, and told me to 
leave a lantern for her husband. I went with Price and we had 
tea. On going back to the stable we saw that McLeod had not 
returned. Price went to see what the trouble was, and in a 
few moments drove into the yard with the horse and sleigh, 
without barrel or pail, and telling me to hurry with him to the 
river, as he feared McLeod was drowned. We went at once 
to the river. The barrel and pail had by this time floated be- 
yond the mouth of the Magog River, and was being carried by 
the current down the St. Francis River, towards the ice. The 
St. Francis River was open only for a small space about the 
mouth of the Magog River, and the remainder of it was all 
frozen over. It was a very cold night, and before lights and 
assistance of any use could be had, the body must have been 
carried under the ice of the St. Francis, as it could not be 
found in the small space of open water. The current of both 
rivers coming together at the mouth of the Magog would have 
a tendency to drive the body down the St. Francis and under 
the ice. From all the circumstances, I have no doubt of his 
having been drowned on that occasion." 

The affidavit of Thomas Price corroborates that of White- 
house, and also relates the following incidents: "I went to 
the stable after supper and saw that McLeod had not re- 
turned from the river. I started out to look down the hill to 
see if he was coming. Not seeing him, I went to the river. 
There I found the horse backed into the stream, the horse's fore 
feet standing on the edge of the ice in about a foot of water, 
the hind feet over the edge of the ice in water about three 
feet deep. The sleigh apparently was afloat and the barrel 
and pail were missing. I took the horse and sleigh imme- 
diately to the stable, and with others hastened back to the 
river, telling persons on the way of my fears that McLeod 
was drowned. A crowd soon gathered, one of whom found 
McLeod's cap drifted and frozen to the shore ice. At the 
mouth of the Magog River, where this occurred, a strong cur- 
rent prevails, and the waters of the St. Francis, into which 
the Magog empties, must have carried the body under the ice, 
as it could not be found in the open water." 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 129 

Price further avers that he has " no doubt, from all the cir- 
cumstances of the evening, that McLeod was drowned on that 
occasion." 

In further support of the alleged drowning, the proofs of 
death exhibit the affidavit of a person who, passing at the 
time, noticed the horse and sleigh on the bank of the Magog, 
as McLeod was in the act of backing down to the river. It 
was too dark for this person to distinguish McLeod sufficiently 
to recognize him, but he observed a man standing on the rear 
end of a sleigh or sled, behind a barrel, backing a horse into 
the water. As this was a common occurrence, the witness paid 
no particular attention to it at the time, but returning soon 
afterwards, when passing the same place, where he had pre- 
viously noticed the horse and sleigh, in looking across the 
river he saw a water-barrel and pail floating out from the Magog 
towards the St. Francis River. Witness simply thought the 
man whom he had previously seen had lost his barrel and pail ; 
and he further states that the interval of time between going 
and returning, was no more than would have been necessary 
for the occurrence of such an accident to the person in charge 
of the team. 

Upon this evidence the widow of McLeod demanded pay- 
ment of the principal sum insured; and similar affidavits were 
submitted to the ^tna Life Insurance Company of Hartford, in 
support of a claim arising under a policy written upon McLeod's 
life by that company. In presenting these claims against the 
insurance companies, a gentleman who announced himself as 
a brother-in-law of the widow, and also as " secretary to one 
of the ministers of the crown," addressed the companies by 
letters, saying: "The evidence is, of course, circumstantial; 
but I beheve no equitable doubt remains of Mr. McLeod's 
death, at the time and in the manner specified." 

The preliminary proofs were not submitted until the May 
following McLeod's disappearance, they having been delayed 
in view of the possibility of his body being found on the break- 
ing up of the ice. In the month of July a body was found in 
the St. Lawrence River, into which the St. Francis flows, which 
was thought to be that of McLeod. Upon examination it was 
found to be the body of a much older person than M(;Leod, 



130 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

and although the clothing upon it was torn to rags by the 
action of the water, sufficient remained to determine that the 
pantaloons and shirt were different in fabric from those which 
McLeod was known to have worn. 

An early investigation of the circumstances surrounding the 
case at the time of McLeod's disappearance, led to the belief 
that the manner of his departure was not strictly in accordance 
with the presumption of death by drowning. There were numer- 
ous little facts, trivial in themselves and apparent only to the 
careful observer, which justified such belief, and which furnished 
the usual ear-marks of fraud. In illustration we may mention 
the finding of McLeod's cap. It was an old, tightly fitting seal- 
skin cap, which, drawn upon his head as he was accustomed to 
wear it — ^and especially as he would wear it upon so cold a night 
as the one in question — would not easily come off upon his 
accidentally falling into the water. But if it did come off, it 
could not of itself, or by the action of the current, get upon 
the fixed shore ice where it was found. This was simply a 
physical impossibility, overlooked at the time, but none the 
less significant. 

It was a long time before any trace of the missing man was 
obtained, but through post-office communications it was sus- 
pected he had gone South, and probably to Louisville, Ky. 
Inquiries in Louisville led to the finding of a maternal uncle of 
McLeod, and this uncle, although he knew nothing of the miss- 
ing man, was able to give the names and residences of relatives 
of whom inquiry might be made. One of the names thus men- 
tioned was that of the Louisville man's brother, another uncle 
of McLeod; and near his residence, upon a sheep ranche in 
Live Oak County, Texas, the materialized form of Donald Mc- 
Leod, the doppdganger, may be seen. There his wife has re- 
joined him, and there we leave him. 

Any one who will examine a map of the country will find it 
to be a long and perilous journey for a man to undertake, 
especially during the inclement season of the year upon which 
McLeod set out upon his voyage. Starting from the mouth of 
the Magog River, thence by the St. Francis and St. Lawrence 
to the Atlantic, much of the way under ice; thence floating 
against the current of the Gulf-stream, he is carried through the 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 131 

Atlantic into and through the Gulf of Mexico; thence being 
irresistibly drawn into the mouth of the Nueces River, he is 
finally cast ashore upon the river bank, near the little town of 
Oakville. 

Later developments suggest another and quite different route 
as the one by which he finally arrived in Texas. It is thereby 
shown that upon the night of his disappearance he first put his 
fur coat and an extra cap into the water-barrel which he took 
to the river. Then, after arranging the horse and sleigh in the 
water as subsequently discovered, tipping the barrel and pail 
into the river, and throwing his wet cap on the ice in a place 
where the current could not wash it away, he went down along 
the bank of the St. Francis until he could cross upon the ice to 
the opposite side. He then proceeded on the ice up the river 
until he passed the railway passenger station, when he pursued 
his way along the track and walked thereon to a station about 
twenty miles east from Sherbrooke, where he entered a Pullman 
sleeping-car. He paid his fare on the cars, to escape recog- 
nition by purchasing a ticket at the station ; and thus continued 
on his way, mostly by rail. 

The reader is at liberty to adopt either version of his journey 
to Texas, but the one by water is more consistent with the 
proofs of death. 

A REPENTANT FOOL. 
In the year 1874, resided in Louisiana, Pike County, Mo., 
a man named Charles A. Folk, about thirty-five years old, 
respectably connected, and possessed of considerable intelli- 
gence but not much energy. He had been a section boss on 
a railroad. He had a wife who was the stronger-minded of the 
two, and played the part of Gretchen to his Rip Van Winkle; 
for, like Rip, he was fond of hunting, fishing, loafing about cor- 
ners and whittling the edges of dry goods boxes. His domestic 
relations were not altogether lovely, and he was addicted to 
long absences from home. He did not have the utmost con- 
fidence in the fidelity of his wife, but was somewhat indifferent 
about the matter. Among Folk's intimate friends was one 
Wm. Moseley, a resident of Bowling Green, the county-scat 
of Pike, where many a time and oft the eloquence of men 



132 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

wtiose fame has reached as far as St Louis has shaken the 
rafters of the Court House. Folk suspected that Moseley was 
a trifle too intimate with his wife, but, hke a good, easy soul, 
he said nothing, and expressed no surprise on finding them 
together on his return from a fishing excursion to the Sny, or 
a duck-hunt on Grassy Creek. 

One day, while the three friends were together, the subject 
of life insurance came up, and it was agreed between them 
that Folk should take out a policy of $10,000 on his life, in 
favor of Mrs. Folk. Moseley, the generous and disinterested 
friend, furnished the money to pay the premiums. On the 13th 
of August, 1874, the policy was taken out in the New York 
Life, in favor of Olive A. Folk. The '' next friend," or what- 
ever the term may be in such transactions, was Wm. Moseley. 
The half-yearly premiums were $125 each; the first one was 
paid, and the next was due in February, 1875. So far, every 
thing seemed proper and legitimate. 

About the middle of January, Folk disappeared, and was 
seen no more at the corner grocery, nor trolling for cat-fish in 
Salt River. At that time the Mississippi was frozen over, and 
at a certain place there was a large air-hole. Near this air-hole 
the coat, hat, and gun of Folk w^ere found — left lying around 
loose, as a man would have left such things when he intends 
plunging into eternity through such an air-hole in the ice. 
Poor fellow! Weary of life, or maddened by jealousy, he had 
gone to a shivering death in the bosom of the dark river, and 
would become food for the very cat-fish he had attempted to 
ensnare. His disconsolate wife was almost distracted by her 
sad bereavement, and wept long and loudly. Moseley, too, 
his bosom friend, groaned and lamented, and moralized on the 
uncertainty of life and the horror of suicide. Search was made 
for the body; the air-hole was sounded, and other air-holes 
below were watched, but the body of the section boss did not 
pop up. After a short season of mourning, the widow thought 
of the insurance on the life of the dear departed, and con- 
sulted her " next friend," Moseley, concerning it. It was 
necessary to employ a lawyer, and one David P. Dyer was 
selected as the most suitable lawyer to manage the case. 
Proofs of the drowning of Folk were sent to Air. William L. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 133 

Hill, the local agent of the New York Life at St. Louis, and 
the payment of the policy demanded. As the corpus delicti 
had not been proved, Mr. Hill concluded to wait a while before 
paying the $10,000. The result showed that his caution was 
well taken. A few days afterwards Mr. Hill received a letter 
dated Memphis, Tenn., and signed by Charles A. Folk, re- 
questing him not to pay the money to his wife, as he was alive 
and kicking. Persons familiar with the writing of Folk identi- 
fied the letter as genuine; but Mr. Dyer insisted that it was a 
forgery. The company, however, refused to pay, and suit was 
brought in the Court of Common Pleas at St. Louis to enforce 
the payment. 

Further proofs were necessary and were not wanting. The 
corpus delicti would settle the business, and when the ice in 
the river broke up in the spring, a colored man was found who 
testified that he saw the bloated carcass of Folk among some 
fragments of floating ice, sailing down towards the jetties, ready 
to be fished out by some enterprising coroner. Still Mr. Hill 
was incredulous, and was convinced that Folk was alive. The 
circumstances of the case convinced him that a deep-laid con- 
spiracy had been entered into to defraud his company, and he 
followed the policy of fighting the case to the bitter end, if it 
cost the whole $10,000 to do it. 

In the fall the case was removed to the United States Cir- 
cuit Court in St. Louis. In the spring of 1876 the case was 
called, but the judge had more important matters on hand, and 
it was continued to September. 

Parties in interest entered into the plans of Mr. Hill, who 
had taken measures at the beginning to ferret out what was be- 
lieved to be a cunning conspiracy. Mr. Hill went to Mem- 
phis and placed himself in communication with Mr. P. R. 
Athy, Chief of Police of that city, to whom he related all the 
facts in his possession. Folk had assumed the name of R. 
Russell at Memphis, and afterwards that of J. R. Sloan. He 
had disappeared from Memphis, and left no trace of his where- 
abouts. It is supposed that when he wrote to Mr. Hill, in- 
forming him of his existence in the flesh, he was moved partly 
by fear of detection and partly by revenge against IMoseley. 
He believed that Moseley was living with his wife, and had 



134 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

entered into the conspiracy to get rid of him and to share the 
spoils with the woman. 

Chief Athy sent a description of Folk to all parts of the 
South, and a reward was offered for his arrest. After a diligent 
search of eighteen months, the fugitive was arrested at a place 
called Surrounded Hill, in Prairie County, Arkansas, by Sheriff 
Williams, of that county. Mr. Hill obtained a requisition and 
brought the prisoner to St. Louis, and lodged him in jail. 

Being taken into custody. Folk expressed extreme gratifica- 
tion at the event. He had been wandering in the wild woods 
so long, a fugitive from justice, haunted by a remorseful con- 
science, and stung almost to madness by the conviction that 
his wife was not only untrue to him, but had conspired with her 
paramour to rid herself of his presence, that he was glad of a 
change. He had become a vagabond on the earth, afraid to 
look upon the face of a white man, and had made his home in 
a miserable cabin inhabited by negroes, with whom he asso- 
ciated on terms of equality, though he knew they were his 
superiors in morality, if not in intelligence. When taken on 
board the train and placed in a sleeper, he could not contain 
his joy, but gave vent to his feelings in loud and oft-repeated 
self-gratulations. On being locked up in jail, he was still 
better pleased, and declared his cell was a luxurious apart- 
ment compared with the place he had been occupying in Ar- 
kansas. He said he wished his wife and her lover no greater 
punishment than to be compelled to pass thirteen months of 
their lives down in Rackensack, where he had been. 

A DISAPPEARANCE IN THE BLACK HILLS. 

The gold mania, engendered by the reported discoveries of 
the precious metal in the Black Hills country, freshened the 
activity of the adventurous classes. Cleveland did not escape 
the contagion, and six of its citizens, including one James 
Hearns and his son, made preparations to violate the treaty of 
the Government with the Indian occupants, and poach upon 
their hunting-grounds. The party travelled together until they 
reached Wolf Mountain, north of the Black Hills, where Hearns 
and son, by mutual arrangement, parted from their companions, 
to pursue a dififerent course and seek their fortunes alone. The 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 135 

father and son had not proceeded a great distance when, ac- 
cording to the statement of young Hearns, they were attacked 
by Indians, and his father was shot in the forehead and thigh. 
Of course young Hearns did all that an affectionate and dutiful 
son should do under the unfortunate circumstances. He tried 
his best to save his father's life, but all efforts were in vain. 
The deadly bullet had completed its work, and nothing was left 
for the sorrowing youth but to give his paternal ancestor decent 
burial. After performing the last sad and solemn funeral rites 
the young man arrived at Yankton, and, finding himself without 
funds, telegraphed to Cleveland for the means with which to 
return to his widowed mother. The disconsolate youth re- 
turned, and, after the lapse of a brief period, applied for the 
insurance which Hearns, senior, had, with wise forethought, 
effected upon his life. From certain suspicious circumstances 
the insurance companies prudently refused to pay one dollar 
of the sum claimed, and the consequence was a lawsuit, which 
resulted in a verdict for the plaintifif. The counsel for the de- 
fence were not at all disconcerted at the turn affairs had taken, 
but simply asked for a stay of proceedings. 

Now comes the interesting part of the business. Immediately 
after the trial, Mr. E. K. Wilcox, in company with Detective 
Reed, started for Lake County, Ohio, and, in their rambles 
around Madison, a village about forty miles from Cleveland, 
they thought they saw something which looked very much like 
the departed James Hearns. At first they were inclined to 
doubt their senses, and determined to wait and watch. About 
midnight again they saw the supposed corpse, and traced him to 
the house where he was staying, where, upon an interview, the 
dead James Hearns, who had been shot in cold blood in the 
Black Hills, was found to be alive and well. Upon recognition 
there were no hearty congratulations, but all that was heard 
was the laconic " You're my prisoner," and the sharp click of 
the handcuffs. The prisoner, seeing that all resistance was use- 
less, meekly accepted the situation. When the big game had 
been bagged in Lake County, a dispatch was sent to Cleveland 
to forward James Hearns, Jr., which was promptly done, and 
the affectionate couple were reunited in jail, and detained to 
answer the charge of perjury, attempt at swindling, and sub- 
ornation of perjury. 



136 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

EVANS, THE NORTHWOOD MURDERER. 

On the 1 6th of August, 1870, Franklin B. Evans, a man sixty 
years of age, then living at the house of his brother-in-law, 
Elias Evans, in Derry, New Hampshire, called at the Boston 
agency of the Travelers Insurance Company, and, on pretence 
of going to Canada, obtained a general accident policy for one 
month, in the sum of $1,500, for the benefit of his brother 
Elias. On the 29th of the same month, the beneficiary, a man 
between fifty and sixty years of age, notified the company that 
Franklin B. Evans had been drowned, accidentally, on the 
evening- of the 24th, while bathing at Hampton Beach, New 
Hampshire. 

Inquiry into the matter by the adjuster of the company 
aroused his suspicions, and he proceeded to investigate the 
case more minutely. He found that Evans had called at the 
Granite House, Hampton Beach, on the afternoon of the 24th 
of August, and arranged for rooms and board for himself and 
two friends, who were to come there. On his arrival, Evans 
had requested the clerk to enter his name upon the hotel 
register, which was done. No room was assigned him, nor was 
he present at any meal. The same evening he was in the office 
of the hotel, and had some conversation with the clerk relative 
to bathing near the House. This was the last seen of him. 
The next morning clothes were found spread upon the beach, 
at a time when there appeared to be no one in bathing to whom 
they might belong. Finally, the garments were examined, and 
from papers found in the pockets, the clothing was supposed to 
be that of Franklin B. Evans. In the course of the day Elias 
Evans arrived at the Beach from his home in Derry, and in- 
quired for Franklin. He was informed of the clothing that 
had been found, and at once identified it as having belonged 
to his brother Franklin. 

Immediate search for the body was made. The morning was 
calm and clear, and the translucency of the water permitted a 
good examination of the sea-bottom at considerable depth ; but 
although boats passed carefully over all that portion of the 
water where it was supposed the missing body might be, no dis- 
covery was made. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 137 

After a visit to Derry, and interviews with several parties 
living there, the adjuster became satisfied that the whole affair 
was a fraud, and he freely stated his convictions to Elias Evans. 
He further refused to accept the allegations as satisfactory 
proofs of loss, and demanded the surrender of the policy. 

Nothing further was heard from Franklin B. Evans for more 
than two years. About the ist of November, 1S72, he was re- 
vealed to the world as a monster of cruelty and villainy. He 
was arrested and tried for the fiendish outrage and murder, at 
Northwood, of Georgianna Lovering, aged fourteen years, the 
grandchild of his sister, Mrs. Day. To his conviction of this 
awful atrocity, the details of which are as heartrending as any- 
thing in the whole range of criminal annals, was added his own 
confession, not only of the murder of Georgie, but of a little 
child, the daughter of Mr. Mills, of Derry, in 1850, and of re- 
peated guilt in theft, counterfeiting, defrauding, adultery, and 
incest. As one portion of these confessions forms a fitting 
sequel to the particulars we have given, and justifies the Trav- 
elers Insurance Company in resisting what was presumably a 
fraud, we subjoin a copy: 

New Hampshire State Prison, 
Concord, N. H., February 14, 1874. 
To THE Travelers Insurance Company, Hartford, Conn. : 

Gentlemen — In the month of August, 1870, I was a poor man 
and thought of a plan whereby I could obtain some money. Together 
with Elias Evans, I planned to obtain an accident insurance upon my 
life; the insurance to be for his benefit. Elias is my brother-in-law, 
he having married my sister, and lives in Derry, N. H. 

Having decided upon our plan of operation for defrauding your 
company, I went to your office in Boston, on the i6th day of August, 
1870, and made application for a policy, stating to your agent that I 
contemplated a visit to Canada. A policy, insuring my life for $1,500, 
for one month, was written by your Boston agency, and was made 
payable to my brother-in-law, Elias. 

Having obtained the policy, I went to Hampton Beach and made 
arrangement for board at the Granite House there. This was on the 
afternoon of the 24th of August. That evening I went out of the 
hotel, saying to the hotel clerk I was going in bathing. I did not 
go into the water at all. I took off my clothing, leaving it all on 
the beach, and put on another suit which I had provided for the 
purpose. I left my clothes lying on the beach at about ten o'clock 
that night. The day after I left the Beach, while walking in the road 



138 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

near Raymond, Lawyer Bartlett came along and took me into his 
carriage and carried me a few rods, when I got out at a cider-mill, 
where was some new cider being made. I went up into Northern 
Vermont. Elias did not know where I was going, for when I left 
him I told him it was better he should not know where I was going, 
so that when he was inquired of about it he would not have to lie 
about it. 

I got tired staying off up in Vermont, hiding up. I concluded to 
return to Derry, and did so in about four weeks after I left the Beach. 
I was hid in Elias's barn for awhile. While I was in the barn I 
learned from Elias that your agent had been there to see Elias, and 
that he did not believe I was drowned, and that he would not pay 
the $1,500 to Elias. Elias and I had arranged that if the money was 
paid, he was to have $500, and I was to have $1,000. 

I feel that I have done wrong in this matter, and want you to for- 
give me. 

Franklin B. Evans. 

Witness: J. C. Pilsbury, Warden. 

On the 17th of February, 1874, the hoary-headed scoundrel 
expiated his crimes on the gallows at Concord, New Hamp- 
shire. 

A LAME MAN LEAVES TRACKS OF BETRAYAL. 

Joseph L. Clement, a shiftless and worthless fellow, lived at 
Brownfield, Maine. He had a wife and two children, and a 
boon companion named George A. Hartford. In May, 1871, 
Clement obtained a policy of $5,000 upon his life in the North- 
western Mutual Life, and in September of the same year $5,000 
more in the Travelers, and $5,000 in the Economical, $15,000 
in all, the last policy being dated September 2y, 1871. Out 
of these facts grew incidents which brought Clement into noto- 
riety. During the evening of October 3, 1871, Clement and 
his crony, Hartford, were returning home from Cornish in 
separate teams. According to Hartford's statement, when 
about five miles from Cornish, where the road runs along a 
bluff of the Saco River, Clement started ahead. Soon after- 
ward Hartford heard a noise, a splash in the water and loud 
cries for help. He hastened to the spot and shouted over 
the bank in the darkness, but received no reply. He hurried 
to Hiram bridge, in the neighborhood, gave the alarm, and 
procured assistance. The body of the horse and the wagon 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 139 

were found in the river, but Clement could not be found. 
In October, 1874, suit was brought by Mrs. Ruth H. Clement 
against the Economical to recover under its policy, but it was 
resisted on the ground of gross fraud. Defendant's counsel 
contended that the horse had been backed over the bank, and 
had received a heavy blow between the eyes as he went over; 
it was also claimed that the cloth and hat found m the road 
were placed there by Hartford. It was shown, moreover, that 
Clement was lame in the left foot, occasioning a hitch in his 
walk, and leaving a peculiar track. The track was discovered 
the next morning leading from the place of the occurrence, and 
the same track was found within a fortnight after, between 
Hartford's house and the neighborhood where Cyrus Durgin, 
brother-in-law of Clement, resided. Dr. Jesse P. Swett also 
saw a man he thought to be Clement coming out of the road 
leading to Hartford's, who suddenly disappeared in the woods. 
The same man was seen by other parties, but soon after he 
disappeared entirely. Defendants alleged that he had gone to 
some other part of the country, where he was living under an 
assumed name. The jury returned a verdict for the defendant 
company on the ground of fraud, and that the man had been 
seen alive since his presumed death. 

On the 24th of September, 1878, Mrs. Clement brought 
suit against the Travelers, in the United States District Court, 
before Judge Fox. After the case was called, the counsel for 
the defense produced an affidavit, signed by the mother and 
sister of Clement, which sets forth that he was not drowned 
at the time of the loss of the team, but had hid in the woods, 
where he remained for some time. While there his tracks 
were seen and aroused suspicion, owing to a peculiar formation 
of one of his feet. He managed to communicate with his 
mother, and, as soon as he could escape, went to Blue Earth, 
Minnesota. His mother removed to the same place, and there 
they had been together until a year past, when Clement went 
to the Black Hills, and his mother returned to Waterboro, 
Maine. She remained quiet, but the lawyers got wind of her 
presence, a justice of the peace sought her out, and finally 
she and her daughter signed an affidavit to the above facts. 
The lawyer, by letters, had found out where Clement was. 



140 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

THE CAPTURE OF A SHREWD TRICKSTER. 

In cases of mysterious disappearance where claims have 
been brought to recover under Hfe or accident insurance poli- 
cies, the evidence was at first almost wholly of a circumstantial 
nature, such as the finding of the hat or coat of a missing man 
in places or under conditions that would lead to a presump- 
tion of death by accident. Fraudulent claims arising from such 
cases became so numerous that the accident companies sought 
to protect themselves by specifically providing in their policies 
that " this insurance does not cover disappearance." There- 
fore, to establish a valid claim it now becomes necessary to 
identify the dead body of the insured, or to furnish credible 
eye-witnesses to an alleged accident. The substitution of a body 
in a fraudulent case is attended with no little risk of detection, 
while arranging for eye-witnesses to a pretended accident 
almost necessarily means conspiracy and its attendant dangers. 
Each of these schemes is occasionally practiced, but disap- 
pearance claims are much less frequent than formerly, prob- 
ably because of the increased hazard incurred through the 
necessity of having more than one interested person in the 
plot. It is, of course, possible that a trick may be so adroitly 
planned and be carried out with such masterly ability that 
even the eye-witnesses themselves may be deceived, and thereby 
led to give their aid and co-operation in an attempt to defraud. 

In a case whose details are as follows, eye-witnesses to the 
drowning of Joel Pieper attempt to explain their innocence 
on the grounds of such deception, and Pieper himself endorses 
their explanations, thereby appropriating to himself all the 
cunning, all the skill, and all the glory belonging to his fraudu- 
lent venture. Joel is therefore undoubtedly the hero of this 
tale, and it is proper that he should be presented to the reader 
as such. At the time of which we write, in the fall of 1880, he 
was a resident of Quincy, 111., called himself a farmer, fifty 
years of age, was married, and, so far as known, enjoyed a 
somewhat unenviable reputation. A few months previous he 
had been indicted for burglary and was out on bail, his bonds- 
men expecting him to appear at the November term of court. 
In this matter of burglary Joe had a pal, or confederate in 
crime, named Scott, who also was indicted, but being obliged 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 141 

to stand trial, was convicted and duly sentenced to the peni- 
tentiary. Shortly before the time when Pieper would have to 
appear for trial — that is to say on October 9, 1880 — he obtained 
two insurance policies written by the Travelers Insurance Com- 
pany of Hartford, Conn., in the total sum of $4,000, upon 
his valuable life, procuring them through an agent to whom 
he was a stranger. The policies were made payable to his 
wife in the event of his death by accident. Notice of the un- 
timely drowning of the insured soon followed, the alleged 
widow presenting sworn statements as follows: First, her per- 
sonal affidavit, . . . "that said Joel Pieper in company with 
Thomas H. Bryant and James H. Bryant did, on the morning 
of October 31, 1880, start from his house in Quincy, III, with 
the intention of crossing the Mississippi river into Missouri 
for the purpose of gathering nuts and persimmons, and has 
never returned." 

Pieper's two companions, whose names Mrs. Pieper men- 
tions, were her own brothers. Their affidavit in support of her 
claim under the insurance policies is as follows: ..." They were 
with said Joel Pieper in a small boat or skiff on the Mississippi 
river about eight miles south of Quincy, 111., on the Missouri 
side, October 31, 1880. At said time we saw said Pieper fall 
out of said skiff into the river, and that he rose to the surface 
of the water but once afterward, and then about thirty feet 
below or down the river from the boat, and that they used 
every means in their power to rescue and save said Pieper 
from drowning, but without effect. And further, that they 
believe and are fully satisfied said Joel Pieper was drowned at 
that time and place, although his body has not as yet been 
found and identified. Said Pieper had on, at the time of said 
accident, a very heavy overcoat, buttoned up close to the throat, 
which said affiants believe had a tendency to hold the body 
under water." 

These two eye-witnesses, who were brothers-in-law of Pieper, 
a few days after the occurrence were able to show, satisfactorily 
to the court, why and wherefore Pieper could not appear in 
answer to the indictment for burglary, and the forfeiture of 
bail by his bondsmen was accordingly set aside. The two 
Bryants were on the bond. 



142 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

Public opinion seemed to be divided upon the credibility of 
the drowning story as related by the Bryants. The affiants 
were young men of good reputation for veracity, and those 
who knew them personally felt confident that they were in- 
capable of being parties to a conspiracy to defraud. Mrs. 
Pieper employed as her counsel one of the leading lawyers of 
Quincy, and he informed the representative of the insurance 
company that he had fully satisfied himself of the honesty of 
his client's cause before he consented to advocate it. He fur- 
ther wrote, ..." I took great pains to inquire fully about the 
facts. I am aware of the occasional attempts to defraud in 
matters of this sort; I am satisfied, however, that this is not 
one of them. Whilst I feel certain as to this, I also feel that it 
is proper the company should have ample time to become fully 
satisfied before paying the insurance." On the other hand, 
there were not a few who expressed their belief that such a 
combination of circumstances — that is, of indictment for burg- * 
lary, of obtaining bail, of the near approach of trial, of the 
insurance, of the accident, and of the relationship of the dra- 
matis personse — clearly indicated trickery and fraud; and it 
appeared to be a general opinion that if Pieper was not actually 
drowned as alleged, it must be because he had been landed dry- 
shod from the boat upon the Missouri shore, and was then in 
hiding. 

A year elapsed, and October, 1881, arrived without any 
material disclosures touching the missing man. True, the local 
newspapers had published a rumor in August previous that 
Pieper had been seen in St. Louis alive and well, but added 
that " the story is not credible, and the evidence is entirely too 
slight to allow belief that Pieper is alive." No effort to find 
him had been made, and the insurance company realized that 
it now was necessary to pay the claim or satisfy the courts that 
it should not. It was decided that a search should be instituted 
with a view to ascertain something conclusive, one way or the 
other. The first move was to obtain reliable and thorough 
information as to Pieper's habits, mode of life, and general 
surroundings. As a result, a more negative character would 
be hard to find. He seemed to have lived pretty much to him- 
self, with but few associates and no intimates. It was some 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 143 

days before any one could be found outside of his wife's family 
who really knew him personally. Finally one Brown was got 
hold of, a sort of a river habitue, who knew Joe Pieper and 
more about him and his antecedents than did any one pre- 
viously seen. According- to Brown's account, Pieper, who had 
stated in his insurance application that he was " a farmer," had 
not been on a farm for years, but was by turns a boat carpenter, 
fisherman, and swamp hunter. 

Becoming satisfied as to Brown's reliability and fidelity, he 
was employed to enter upon a prolonged search. The trail 
was an old one and it had become cold, but the amateur de- 
tective started down the river, making only brief stops until 
he reached St. Louis. He remained a few days in and near 
that city, and satisfied himself that Pieper had been there about 
a year previous, or very soon after the " drowning." Getting 
no further trace. Brown then went to Cairo, 111., and there took 
a skiff and ransacked the river landings and islands as far down 
as Fort Pillow. At one of the islands forty or fifty miles below 
Cairo he first struck the trail. Pieper had been there some 
months before. Nothing further was learned, however, until 
he reached Fort Pillow. Brown knew that Pieper had a rela- 
tive some miles from this place, so he then abandoned the 
river and went into the country. It required several days' 
tramping, often retracing his steps, before he successfully 
located the relative; but when it was accomplished, he had the 
satisfaction of learning from the neighbors that Pieper was 
then at this relative's house. Brown then went to Ripley, 
Tenn., the nearest point where he could communicate with the 
insurance company, and reported the situation. The next 
thing to be done was to obtain Pieper's arrest; Brown in the 
meantime being quietly on guard, but wholly unknown to 
Pieper. A complaint was duly made charging Pieper, his wife, 
and his brothers-in-law, with conspiracy to defraud, and a copy 
of the complaint was forwarded to a lawyer in Ripley, to whom 
Brown was ordered to report in person. The arrest was made 
December 3, 1881, and was so well planned and suddenly exe- 
cuted that Pieper made no resistance. On receipt of telegrams 
announcing the arrest, a requisition was obtained, and the 
Quincy chief-of-police was sent as messenger. He returned at 



144 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

once to Quincy with his prisoner, who was lodged in jail. So 
quietly was this done that the other participants in the affair, 
Mrs. Pieper and her two brothers, were taken completely by 
surprise. 

Pieper was duly arraigned for a hearing, and his story was 
substantially as follows: While out on bail to appear in the 
burglary case of the year previous, he devised the scheme to 
get his Hfe insured, disappear under such circumstances as to 
leave a presumption of his death, and thereby escape the law, 
provide for his wife, and release his bondsmen all at the same 
time. Accordingly, after effecting the insurance, he induced 
his brothers-in-law to go with him down the river in a skiff 
after persimmons and nuts. They spent most of the afternoon 
in the woods, and shortly before sunset started for home. 
Having selected beforehand the place in the river, he, under 
pretext of changing seats with one of the Bryants, purposely 
fell out of the skiff, and swam under water to a drift pile about 
one hundred yards from where he went overboard. He lay con- 
cealed amongst the brush and logs, with his body in the water, 
till after the search by his brothers-in-law had ended ; then leav- 
ing his hiding place he made for the shore, and went to St. 
Louis and thence to Fort Pillow, Tenn. He swore that his wife 
and her brothers knew nothing of the scheme, and that ?ie took 
the two Bryants along in the boat in order that they might 
be good witnesses of his death at the time of the pretended 
drowning. On cross-examination he admitted that on arriving 
in St. Louis he met the father of the two Bryants and of his 
wife. He asserted that he did not tell his father-in-law about 
the circumstances under which he left home, and that he did 
not request him to refrain from mentioning, by letter or other- 
wise, the fact of his being very much alive. This father-in-law 
Bryant accompanied him to Fort Pillow, and worked with him 
there or in the immediate vicinity until the following May, 
when he, Bry^ant, returned to Quincy. 

Mrs. Pieper, the ex-widow, testified that her father came to 
Quincy in May, 1881, and remained imtil some time in August 
following, and that he had never given her any intimation that 
her husband was living. Of course, she had never had the 
slightest doubt of her husband's death until she saw him in 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 145 

jail. How much truth or falsehood went to make up the story 
which Pieper told, was of little consequence to the insurance 
company. Its interest in him ceased when it had restored him 
to the bosom of his afflicted family. 

THE CAPTURE OF FRAKER. 

In the summer of 1893 Dr. George W. Fraker was physi- 
cian to the St. Elmo Hotel, the leading hotel in Excelsior 
Springs, Mo., a health resort near Kansas City. Together 
with several companions the doctor went fishing in the Mis- 
souri river one day in July, and after dark, while in the com- 
pany of George Harry, James Triplett, and " Jake " Crowley, 
a negro, he disappeared and was seen no more. These three 
persons swore positively that they heard a splash and imme- 
diately afterward saw Fraker waist-deep in the water, he 
having fallen down a bank into the river. At the place of the 
alleged accident there is a violent current or eddy in the river 
where logs or stumps being drawn in would be whirled around 
as in a maelstrom, and it seemed impossible that a man falling 
in there could escape with his life. 

The next Sunday after the reported drowning a memorial 
service was held at the Springs, a great crowd being present. 
The funeral oration extolled the virtues of the doctor, the 
music was charming and the flowers were in profusion. Some 
who were present regarded the funeral as a mockery, but it 
was generally believed that the turbid waters of the Missouri 
had closed over the doctor's lifeless body. 

Three or four months previous to this occurrence Dr. Fraker 
began to load up with Hfe insurance, taking $10,000 in the Kan- 
sas Mutual Life of Topeka; $15,000 in the Hartford Life and 
Annuity; $15,000 in the Provident Savings of New York; 
$10,000 in the Equitable Life of New York, and $8,000 in 
benevolent societies; a total of $58,000. Immediately after his 
disappearance, the insurance companies held a conference and 
discovered that while the doctor's income was only about $1,800 
a year, his premiums amounted to more than $1,000 annually. 
Besides this, George Harry and James Triplett, who swore to 
having witnessed Fraker's death, were men of bad character, 
Harry having been arrested in Eastern Missouri on a charge 
of burglary in New Mexico. 



146 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

Before going on his fishing excursion Fraker had drawn all 
his money from the bank, saying he was about to start for 
California to bring home the orphan children of his deceased 
uncle. Forty thousand dollars of the insurance money was 
payable to his brother-in-law in trust for the children. Dr. 
Fraker, who had practiced medicine for eight years, was a great 
fraternity man, and was an active leader in Sunday school 
work, but held rather peculiar views on religious subjects. 
After a thorough investigation, all the companies, except the 
Equitable, refused to pay the claims, whereupon James E. Lin- 
coln, the executor of the will, brought suit in the district court 
at Liberty, Mo., which was afterward transferred to the United 
States Circuit Court at Kansas City. Robert T. Herrick, an 
attorney of Topeka, was appointed to conduct the case for the 
companies jointly, and was assisted by eminent legal talent. 
In December, 1894, after a sensational trial lasting two weeks, 
the case went to the jury after the Court had given it instruc- 
tions which inclined very favorably in the direction of the 
plaintiff, as will appear by the following quotation: 

" As men do not ordinarily engage in such a conspiracy or under- 
taking without some underlying motive or incentive, the question 
naturally enough suggests itself to an honest mind, where is to be 
found in this evidence any satisfactory motive or inducement for these 
men to come into court and commit perjury to enable Dr. Fraker to 
accomplish such a stupendous fraud? It may be that the mind can 
conceive, and there may be in actual history incidents of men of so 
depraved motives or so bound by the mastery of attachment to a 
friend, that without money or hope of reward they would sacrifice 
truth and their oaths to advance the wicked course of another." 

The jury was out only twenty minutes and returned a ver- 
dict against the insurance companies. An application was 
made for a new trial, but in February the insurance companies 
agreed with the Fraker heirs that, unless the body of Fraker 
was found within six months, the money would be paid. The 
six months expired August 12, and in the meantime the com- 
panies ran down several false clues and, failing to find the 
doctor, paid over to the executor the several judgments, and 
at the same time withdrew their offer of $20,000 for the arrest 
of Fraker. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 147 

Herrick, who deserves to rank with the best detectives of 
modern times, obtained a clue in the latter part of 1894, which 
he patiently followed until some time in August, when he 
learned the hiding place and assumed name of the doctor. On 
the 29th he arrived in Tower, Minn., together with John Wil- 
kinson, Chief of Police of Topeka, to assist in taking Fraker 
back. Herrick and Wilkinson learned that Dr. Fraker went 
by the name of Schnell, and lived with a young *man in a wood- 
man's hut fifty miles from Tower, on the Itasca county road. 
A warrant was secured in Tower, and on Sunday morning, 
September ist, accompanied by Deputy Sheriff Philip and a 
guide, they started for the place. Before they had gone far 
the guide told them that Schnell had recently moved to a 
shanty only thirteen miles from Tower. Their course was 
then changed, and about twelve miles from Tower, Philip, who 
was acquainted with Fraker under his alias as Schnell, saw 
Fraker's companion in a shanty near the wood, and on inquir- 
ing where the doctor was, learned that he had just moved to 
this place, and was out hunting. The young man was placed 
under guard, and about two miles further on, Dr. Fraker, with 
a gun on his shoulder, was found. Herrick engaged him in 
conversation, when suddenly Philip seized his arms, and Wil- 
kinson put on the handcuffs. 

Fraker thought he had been arrested for killing game out of 
season, as Philip was also game warden. When the warrant 
was read to him he was thunderstruck, but admitted his identity 
at once. He was brought to Tower, together with his com- 
panion. Fraker readily agreed to accompany the officers to 
Missouri without waiting for extradition papers. He stated 
that he had expected his relatives to get a portion of the in- 
surance money, and himself some also. He had been greatly 
benefited, he said, by the waters of a spring where he was 
staying. 

Fraker's hiding place was only a day's travel from the 
Canadian boundary. He had been there about six months, 
coming into town occasionally for mail and provisions. His 
supply of money was quite low, and he evidently expected some 
shortly. 

He said that at the time of the drowning " fake " he went 



148 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

directly to Kansas City, shaved off his beard, and after three 
or four days went to Chicago, thence to Milwaukee, where 
he assumed the name of William Schnell, and where he stayed 
most of the fall of 1893. He then went from one place to 
another until he finally reached the wilds of Northern Minne- 
sota, where he was living, with only a boy for his companion, 
at the time of his capture. He expressed a relief in being 
captured, saying: " I have wanted a thousand times to come 
back, but the disgrace and what people were saying about 
me kept me from doing so. This living death is horrible, 
and I am glad now I am going back." 

As his executor had not yet distributed the money, Mr. 
Herrick telegraphed to Kansas City to have suit instituted 
against him at once to recover it. A reversal of the decree 
of the United States Circuit Court followed on the 6th of 
November. By agreement of all concerned, a decree was 
entered by Judge Phillips whereby the insurance companies, 
which paid nearly $50,000 to the heirs of Dr. George W. 
Fraker, were to recover all the money except about $4,000, 
which had been spent by the executor of the will in administering 
on the estate of Dr. Fraker and in prosecuting suits against 
the insurance companies. The parties to the agreement w^ere 
the attorneys for the insurance companies, and Judge James 
E. Lincoln, executor of the will of Dr. Fraker. The total 
amount recovered by all the companies was $36,557.04, but this 
was not all in cash, and it is uncertain yet what it will net the 
companies. The Equitable made a compromise settlement, 
before trial, for $8,500. 

The new decree provided that the judgment rendered by the 
court, February 12, 1895, ordering the insurance companies 
to pay the money to Lincoln, as the executor of the will of 
Dr. Fraker, be set aside, vacated and annulled, and the plain- 
tififs and respondents, meaning the executor and beneficiaries 
of the will of Dr. Fraker, be perpetually enjoined and restrained 
from further proceedings in the cases against the insurance 
companies. Of course, the agreement between the companies 
and the executor, and the decree of the court could have no 
effect on the prosecution of Fraker for attempting to defraud 
the insurance companies by pretending to be dead so that his 
heirs would get the money. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 149 

MONOTONOUS REPETITION OF THE DROWNING TRICK. 

In February, 1881, a house painter in Evansville, Ky., 
named Charles A. Lucas, was seen to fall overboard from the 
Ohio river steamer Maggie Smith, then plying between Evans- 
ville and Henderson, and was reported to have been drowned. 
Soon after this occurrence it was discovered that he had been 
insured for $15,000 in the Northwestern Mutual Life, and 
$4,000 in a Louisville co-operative. Investigation followed, 
and translucency soon became transparency. Mr. Lucas was 
not drowned beyond resuscitation; he re-appeared upon the 
stage of action, and confessed participation in a conspiracy. 
His employer was a well-known young lawyer of Evansville, 
Julius A. Coleman, who persuaded him, in pursuance of the 
scheme, to marry Coleman's servant, who willingly entered 
into the plot, and became nominally the beneficiary of the 
policies. Then, to mature the claim, Lucas was to " drown 
himself" in the river in a life-preserving rubber suit. In the 
confession of the woman, which is made in the form of a 
sworn affidavit, it is stated that Coleman hired her and Lucas 
to carry out the scheme, agreeing to pay her $2,000 and Lucas 
$4,000, and that they were to disappear for a time, and when 
the matter was forgotten, to try the same trick over again some- 
where else. A man named J. V. Richardson was also em- 
ployed by Coleman to witness the drowning and swear to it. 
His affidavit states that he was hired for the purpose, and was 
to receive money; that he saw Lucas with a rubber suit, and 
knew it was a plot to swindle the insurance companies. He 
reported the matter to the newspapers, and the arrest of Cole- 
man, Lucas and Richardson promptly followed. 



The executive officers of the Northwestern Mutual Life 
entitled themselves to great credit a few years ago for their 
patience in following to final conviction an unusually length- 
ened disappearance. Several years elapsed before suspicion 
ripened into confirmation, but even-handed justice overtook the 
offenders at last. In 1873, Jeremiah Elliot, w4io lived in the 
neighborhood of Portland, Oregon, insured the life of his son 
Moses, aged 18, in the company, through its Portland agent, for 
$8,000. In the course of a few months, allegation was made 



150 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

that Moses, while rafting with his uncle on the Columbia river, 
was drowned. There was no recovery of the body, but at the 
same time there was no one to refute the evidence of the uncle. 
The suspicious character of the occurrence, however clear to 
the trained scrutiny of the company, would have presented 
nothing irregular or " crooked " to the untrained vision of a 
jury, and as there was no alternative but payment, the com- 
pany paid the claim. Soon afterward Elliot and his brother 
removed to Jackson county, where they bought a sheep ranch. 
In the management of this enterprise they were joined by 
Moses, who, it seems, was not drowned dead enough to prevent 
his assuming the role of a gentle shepherd upon the pastoral 
acres which had been purchased by his submersion in the 
Columbia river. Industry and economy were attended with 
prosperity, and as years passed on, Moses grew to manhood. 
But his features did not change beyond recognition, and when 
the ministers of the law told the " coparceners " they were 
wanted, they obeyed the summons. Legal proceedings re- 
sulted in a verdict for the company for $13,676, principal and 
interest of the money wrongfully paid; and as the ranch and 
its woolly ruminants had become valuable, the company was 
secure in recovery. 

On the 20th of July, 1893, William B. Gregg, of Duluth, 
Minn., who had a short time previously obtained insurance to 
the amount of $14,000 on his life in the Fidelity Mutual Life 
of Philadelphia, the Mutual Life of New York, the United 
States Mutual Accident, and the Northwestern Mutual Life, 
was reported to have been drowned in Lake Superior by the 
capsizing of a small sailboat. The insurance companies were 
promptly notified of the loss, and proofs duly sworn to, in 
which the details of the capsizing of the boat and the drowning 
of Gregg were given by John T. Clark, of Duluth, who accom- 
panied Gregg, and who was in the boat at the time of the 
accident. Contradictory statements made by Clark, and sus- 
picious circumstances connected with the affair, led to the in- 
ference that there was a purpose to defraud, and that Gregg 
was still alive. Detectives were employed by the companies, 
and after several weeks of careful investigation, Gregg was 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 151 

captured in New York City, and taken to Duluth. Clark, who 
was with Gregg in the boat and swore to the drowning, was 
also arrested, together with one Frederick E. Kreyenbuhl, of 
Duluth, the brother-in-law of Gregg, who was implicated in 
the conspiracy, and who was the beneficiary under Gregg's 
policies. 

In May, 1889, James Dillon, a well-known citizen of Tyrrell 
County, North Carolina, insured his life for $3,000 in the Con- 
necticut Mutual Life Insurance Company. Some time after he 
fell from a boat, feigned inability to swim, and had to be pulled 
out of the Alligator river to prevent his drowning. The next 
day he overturned his boat half a mile from shore, and yelled 
loudly for help to a man a quarter of a mile away. When the 
man responded, Dillon secretly swam ashore and could not be 
seen. The man whose assistance he had asked supposed he 
was drowned, and was willing to swear to it. 

Notice of Dillon's death was sent to the company. It re- 
fused to pay the claim. Action was brought by Dillon's wife, 
and the case stood for trial at court, the widow alleging that 
he was drowned. Then a body was found near the place where 
he had been seen to sink in the water. The body was identified 
by twenty-five people as that of Dillon. 

At court, counsel took a non-suit, because the body had 
been found. Evidence of death and identification was for- 
warded to the company, who wrote that they would do as 
advised by their attorneys in the county. The company would 
have paid the money, but to the surprise of every one, Dillon 
himself returned safe and sound to Columbia. Hearing of the 
non-suit, he thought it put an end to his claim, and that there 
was no hope of collecting the money, and so he returned home. 

His statement was remarkable. He said he swam ashore the 
day he overturned the boat, put his hat in it and left it half- 
full of water. He determined to hide in the woods so that his 
wife could get the insurance money. He remained in the great 
swamps for five months, when he found the body of a drowned 
man floating in the Alligator river. He removed the hair from 
the head so as to make it bald, and taking his own hair and 
whiskers, put them in the decomposing flesh of the corpse. 



152 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

He knocked out two of the front teeth of the dead man, and 
removing the clothing from the corpse, dressed it in clothes 
he had worn on the day of his disappearance. 



Early in 1890, a singular case of disappearance, and of re- 
appearance after a long interval, was reported from the Aus- 
tralian city of Brisbane, the capital of Queensland. A sur- 
veyor named Geddes, who was insured in the Australian Mutual 
Provident Society, for i2, 500, was believed to have been 
drowned, and when claim was made for the amount of the 
policy, it was paid to Mr. Geddes's father. It now turns out 
that the surveyor was not drowned, but took passage on a 
vessel for New Zealand, and landed at Invercargill, where he 
successfully practiced his profession. Some years afterward, 
having an erratic disposition, he returned and settled at Ade- 
laide, in South Australia, where he eventually became insane, 
and was placed in a lunatic asylum. Here, by mere accident, 
he was discovered, and his identity established. Thereupon 
the Australian Mutual Provident Society proceeded against 
the elder Geddes for the recovery of the money paid to him. 
Mr. Geddes responded promptly and properly, and not only 
returned the original sum, £2,500, but added interest amount- 
ing to nearly as much more, rising, at eight per cent., to £2,400. 



Late in the fall of 1883, George W. Strohm was reported to 
have fallen overboard from the steamboat Gus Fowler in the 
Ohio river above Cairo. Some time afterward the man turned 
up alive, with a doubtful story of terrible sufifering. The news- 
papers intimated strongly at the time that the drowning was a 
farce played to defraud insurance companies. J. F. Yoakum, 
residing near Gjand Chain, a sort of exhorter and schoolmas- 
ter, addressed a card to the public, asserting that Strohm was 
an honest man, who could not be induced to defraud any one, 
and that he had no insurance on his life. At Mound City, 
Strohm, who is a simple-minded man, was induced by detec- 
tives to confess the plot. He had $10,000 insurance on his 
life, and was induced to enter into a plot to get the money 
without taking the trouble to die. The plotters were on board 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 153 

the Gus Fowler, and it was agreed that when Yoakum made 
certain signals Strohm was to jump overboard and swim ashore. 
At Ogden's Landing, when near enough to shore to make it 
safe, the sign was made, and Strohm leaped over and gained 
the shore. After a reasonable time, Yoakum, with a power of 
attorney, made an application for money to various companies 
in which the insurance on Strohm's life had been effected. An 
investigation was begun, which resulted in the arrest of Yoa- 
kum and Strohm. Yoakum also made a confession, corrobo- 
rating Strohm's statements. 



Anthony Accetta, aged 40, an Italian, residing at Catskill, 
N. Y., whose occupation was given as that of a railroad con- 
tractor, was insured in the Fidelity Mutual Life Association, 
January 14, 1885, for $10,000. The agent, A. G. Fox, was 
generally regarded as a man worthy of confidence. The policy 
was made payable to the father and mother of the insured, but 
a few months afterward it was surrendered for change of bene- 
ficiary, and a new policy was issued, made payable to the 
estate of the insured. Early in the month of June, 1885, the 
Fidelity Association received a telegram from Agent Fox that 
Accetta was accidentally drowned in the Catskill Creek, near 
its confluence with the Hudson River. Without waiting for 
proofs or further developments, President Fouse delegated 
Mr. Alexander McKnight, then Superintendent of Agents, to 
proceed to Catskill, and investigate the case. He found that 
the brother of the insured, Cosmo Accetta, together with a boy, 
claimed to have been out on Catskill Creek in company with 
the insured fishing, and that at eleven o'clock at night, as they 
were about to pull for the shore, Anthony changed his place 
in the boat, fell overboard, and that was the last that was seen 
of him. The alleged drowning was reported, and the usual 
efforts were made to recover the body, but without success. 
About a week afterwards, the body of a dead man, very much 
bloated and discolored, was found, and it is believed that if it 
had not been for the effective work done by the representatives 
of the insurance company, it would have been' identified as the 
body of Anthony Accetta. 



154 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

The insured, it turned out, was an interpreter for Italian 
laborers of railroads, instead of a contractor, and it was found 
that he had carried accident insurance in two different com- 
panies, and had received benefits when he was not entitled 
thereto. He was assisted in securing such benefits by a Mrs. 
Hanley, with whom he boarded. It was her son, together 
with the brother Cosmo, who was a witness to the alleged 
drowning. A watch was placed on the house of Mrs. Hanley, 
the telegraph office, postoffice, railroad station, etc., to note 
the movements of the suspected parties. It was found that a 
little girl, the daughter of Mrs. Hanley, visited Hudson, a 
neighboring town, almost daily, and that she called at the post- 
office at the latter point. It became apparent that a corre- 
spondence was going on between Mrs. Hanley and Accetta, 
under an alias previously agreed upon. With great difficulty 
a photograph of the insured was procured from a photographer 
in New York City. The trail of the person who was believed 
to be Accetta was taken up at Buffalo and followed to Cleve- 
land, O., by Mr. McKnight, who found Accetta at 164 Superior 
Street, while in the act of writing a letter to Mrs. Hanley. He 
was at once taken into custody and searched. Letters were 
found on his person from Mrs. Hanley, written in cipher, and 
a book was found in his possession containing a key to the 
cipher. With the aid of the key, the letters were read, which 
proved conclusively that a conspiracy had been entered into 
by the woman and Accetta, and his brother, to defraud the 
Fidelity. Accetta, however, at once took the position that he 
had no intention of defrauding the company; that on account 
of a difficulty he had with a woman it was his intention to leave 
her under the impression that he was dead, and that neither 
his brother nor the boy had guilty knowledge of his intentions ; 
that he actually fell out of the boat, swam under water for some 
distance, so as to deceive them, and then swam across the 
river, where he dried his clothes and took the first train for 
Buffalo. His story was not believed, and the letters in cipher 
disproved it. He was taken to Cats kill, and after a preliminary 
trial, which consumed nearly a week, he was held for final trial 
at the December session of the Criminal Court. His brother, 
Cosmo, Mrs. Hanley, and the boy, were also arrested as parties 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 155 

to the conspiracy. Anthony was convicted and sentenced to 
the Albany penitentiary for one year, while the others were 
either dismissed or sentenced to pay a small fine. 

A WELSH DESERTER. 

John Jones, of Pittsburgh, Pa., was insured by the Fidelity 
Mutual Life Association under policy No. 5,616 for $2,000, 
issued through its Pittsburg agency, dated August 25, 1883. 
The policy became forfeited through non-payment of premium 
due May 30, 1889. Under its terms it could not be restored 
without a certificate of good health signed by the insured in 
person, subject to the approval of the president and medical 
directors. On June 4, 1889, the amount due was paid and 
health certificate was furnished. The signature attached to the 
health certificate did not correspond with the signature ap- 
pended to the application, which aroused suspicion that the 
signature attached to the health certificate was not that of the 
insured. The officers of the association declined to restore the 
policy, and it was then admitted by the wife of the insured that 
she had signed the health certificate in perfect good faith, that 
her husband had left her some time before, that his whereabouts 
were unknown, and she agreed that the reinstatement should 
not be binding if it could subsequently be shown that her hus- 
band was not in good health, as stated in the health certificate, 
at the time it was executed. On the strength of such agree- 
ment on the part of the wife of the insured, the policy was 
revived. No subsequent payment was made, and nothing 
further heard from the insured or beneficiary until April i, 
1892, when a demand was made for the insurance money. 

It was alleged that on December 23, 1889, the insured, John 
Jones, was killed by a Pittsburgh, Virginia and Charleston train 
at Hays Station, Pa. His remains, however, were not at the 
time identified, and he was buried at the county's expense. 
Mrs. Jones claimed that two young men told her on Decem- 
ber 20th, 1890, that her husband had been killed as above 
stated, and that thereupon she went to the coroner's office and 
immediately recognized the photograph of the remains of the 
man who had been killed by the train as being her husband. 
She reported the discovery to friends, who likewise called at 



156 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

the coroner's office and identified the picture of the man who 
was killed by the passing train as a likeness of John Jones. 
The lapse of time between the accident and the discovery, and 
surrounding circumstances, led the association to make a care- 
ful investigation. As a result, payment of the alleged claim 
was declined. Suit was brought against the association, plain- 
tiff being represented by Mr. Rody Marshall, of Pittsburgh. 
The association was roundly censured for its attempt to deprive 
the unfortunate widow and orphan children of their rights. 

A number of affidavits had been obtained by Mr. W. E. 
Gary, chief of the association's inspection service, showing that 
the insured, John Jones, had been seen alive and well after he 
was claimed to have been killed by the railroad train. With 
the aid of such affidavits, an attempt was made to convince the 
plaintiflf and her counsel that the insured was alive, and that 
the suit should be dismissed, but Mrs. Jones would not be con- 
vinced, neither would her counsel, claiming that they could 
establish beyond a question of doubt that the man killed by 
the railroad train who was unidentified for over a year was no 
other than the insured, John Jones. The association, on the 
other hand, was equally convinced that it was not he, — that 
at the time he was alive and worked in Scranton, Pa.; and it 
therefore proceeded to find him, which proved a difficult task. 
He had left his wife and did not wish to acquaint her with 
his whereabouts. He was finally traced to England, and on 
December 28th, 1893, through the courtesy of an inspector of 
one of the Scottish offices, he was located on Dock Street, 
Newport, in the county of Monmouth, England. He made an 
affidavit, sworn to before Mr. F. S. Dauncey, in which he gave 
full particulars of his departure from the United States, attach- 
ing a photograph as an exhibit, and established beyond doubt 
that he was the person insured by the Fidelity Mutual Life 
Association, 

On receipt of said affidavit and photograph, the latter was 
shown to people who were acquainted with Mr. Jones, and they 
without hesitation declared the photograph to be a picture of 
the insured. 

The following is a copy of the affidavit made by John Jones, 
December 29, 1893: 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 167 

In the matter of a suit alleged to be pending in the American 
courts between Martha Jones, plaintiff, and the Fidelity Mutual Life 
Association, defendants. 

I, John Jones, of Dock Street, Newport, in the county of Mon- 
mouth, England, labourer, and previously of several places in the 
United States of America, and for some time of Carson Street, Pitts- 
burgh, in the said States, make oath and say as follows: 

1. I was born at Crumlin, in the parish of MynyddysUwyn, in the 
county of Monmouth, on the 5th day of June, 1843, and my father 
was Thomas Jones, who was locally known as Thomas Jones, of 
Llanhilleth Colliery, proprietor. 

2. I was married to the above-named Martha Jones, then Martha 
Thomas, or Lloyd, at the residence of the Reverend William Wragg, 
Sankey's House, Sarah Street, Pittsburgh, aforesaid, in or about the 
year 1878, and lived with her on and off up to the years 1887 and 1888, 
when I left her, after being imprisoned for non-maintenance. I came 
to England in the year 1886, upon my father's death, and ultimately 
returned to my wife, and finally came back to England in 1891, where 
I have remained ever since. 

3. I well remember having effected an insurance upon my life and 
in favor of my wife, the said Martha Jones, with the said Fidelity 
Mutual Life Association, at their office or agency in Pittsburgh for 
$2,000, and I believe it was in the year 1883, and that the policy is 
numbered No. 5,616. I was medically examined by a stout practi- 
tioner at Allegheny City, but I forget his name. My wife always 
kept the policy, and as I could not get it from her, I declined to pay 
the premiums and the policy ultimately lapsed, and I thought it had 
come to an end. I did not know that it had been renewed, and I 
have never signed or authorized to be signed for me, any health 
certificate to procure its renewal. 

4. During part of the year 1886 I was in England as aforesaid, and 
in 1887 and 1888 I lived with my wife, the said Martha Jones, at 
Pittsburgh, and in the years 1889-1890 and 1891, I worked at various 
places in the States, amongst others Scranton and Edwardsdale 
(Luzerne), Connelsville (Fayette County), and in 1891 came to Eng- 
land, as before stated. 

John Jones. 
Sworn at Newport in the County "| 
of Monmouth (England), this 29th I 
day of December 1893, before me, j 

F. S. Dauncey, 

A commissioner to administer oaths in the Supreme Court of Judi- 
cature in England. 

The affidavit could not be used in court, but it served its pur- 
pose in convincing the defendant association that John Jones 



158 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

was alive. A commission was issued to take the deposition 
of John Jones before a United States Consul in England. The 
testimony given in the deposition confirmed the statements 
made in the affidavit. The case was called for trial in the 
Court of Common Pleas No. 3, Allegheny County, Pa., and 
after introducing in evidence the deposition of John Jones and 
other testimony showing that he was alive, the court, on 
October 9, 1894, granted a non-suit. It would have cost the 
Fidelity Association little, if any, more to have paid the fraud- 
ulent claim, which was resisted as a matter of principle. 
Repeated attempts were made by plaintiff's counsel to compro- 
mise the case, but the defendant association would entertain 
no proposition of compromise. 

THE THRUN CONSPIRACY.— THE BURNING IN PLACE OF 
THE DROWNING TRICK. 

More than twenty years ago Mary Halverson, a young 
Swede girl, had her home with Andrew Anderson, who kept 
a store at Neenah, Wis. Mary was a bright girl and con- 
tinued to live with the Andersons nearly ten years. The house 
where they lived was known throughout that region as the 
*' haunted house." Strange traditions prevailed that a miner, 
who had come from the then wilds of the upper peninsula of 
Michigan, had entered the place one night seeking refuge from 
the storm, and that he had never been seen alive afterward. 
It was alleged that when the miner was last seen he had 
;$ 1 8,000 in money. The occupants of the place died not long 
afterward and it passed into the possession of the Andersons, 
with the mystery which had followed the miner's disappear- 
ance clinging to it. The Andersons were naturally curious to 
learn if the money he was supposed to have had was still 
secreted on the premises. 

The girl Mary was as much interested as the family in the 
search for treasure trove. The yard was dug up, the house 
examined, but still no trace of it could be gleaned. Experts in 
psychical studies visited the " haunted house " from all over 
that part of the State. They admitted that there was some- 
thing strange about it, but further than that they could not 
penetrate. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 159 

In 1880 the Swede girl Mary left Neenah and went to 
Spencer to live. Afterward she removed to Colby. There she 
met Ferdinand Jules Thrun, who was also a Swede. He was 
an excellent mechanic, and was employed in the sawmills of 
that region. It was not long before an attachment sprang up 
between the two, and in 1881 they were married. 

Soon after the marriage Thrun bought a sawmill with what 
earnings he had accumulated, and started in business for him- 
self. The venture proved a losing one, and he not only lost 
the mill, but was left with a large accumulation of debts. For 
a time thereafter the history of the couple is a blank. 

The following year Mrs. Thrun went back to Neenah, and 
visited the people who were living in the old house which had 
sheltered her so long. She seemed to take great interest in a 
part of the back yard which was buried under a big woodpile. 
After remaining at Neenah for some weeks and finding that the 
woodpile was not to be removed, she returned to her husband, 
only to go back to Neenah two years later. This time the 
back yard was covered by a huge lumber pile. Once more 
she left, but in 1886 she reappeared at Neenah and found the 
back yard of the old haunted house was unincumbered. This 
time her long and weary waiting to secure the treasure she 
had found in the old house and buried in the back yard was 
rewarded. It is believed that she had located the miner's 
money while residing with the Andersons and had hidden it 
in the yard, with the view of carrying it away at some future 
time when she could do so with safety. 

This incident illustrates the cool calculation of the woman 
who was to figure conspicuously in a most remarkable insur- 
ance fraud. 

The treasure trove of Neenah came at a good time for Thrun. 
That year he bought another sawmill, paying $4,000 in cash for 
it. The mill was at once heavily insured, and, whether from 
accident or design, it burned the following year. Those who 
knew the family are inclined to believe that this mill burned 
without the aid of a match. But it is immaterial from what 
source the fire started. As the tiger, which, having once 
tasted human blood, is ever after known as a man-eater, with 
an unquenchable hunger for human flesh, so the taste of insur- 



160 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

ance with the Thruns seems to have aroused an unappeasable 
appetite for it. 

Soon after the first fire, all the creditors of Thrun from his 
first venture came down upon him and made a desperate 
attempt to get hold of the insurance paid by the company. 
It was at this time that Mrs. Thrun told the story of the treas- 
ure trove at Neenah and how she had obtained it. The story 
was wrung from her on the witness-stand in her explanation 
of how she, a poor Swede girl, should have had so much 
money. Once started, she put on many embellishments about 
seeing mysterious lights over the spot where she found the 
money. The jury believed her story, and the creditors failed 
to recover. 

Opportunities were plentiful for buying old sawmills in that 
part of Wisconsin. Most of the timber had been cut away, 
and every few miles an old abandoned mill was to be had at 
almost any price. What had been thriving towns while the 
trees were being cleared away were now almost deserted ham- 
lets. 

As soon as the legal wrangles with the creditors over the 
first mill had ended, Thrun again invested. His sawmill was 
started up, working on the residue of the timber which had 
been left over in the first grand onslaught on the Wisconsin 
pineries. 

Local insurance agents, on the lookout for remunerative 
commissions, were as plentiful in those days in that part of 
the Badger State as in the rest of the country. Tlirun had 
no difficulty in getting his sawmill insured for all it was worth. 
He made a pretense of operating it for some months, and one 
night it followed the first one. The experience the couple had 
with their first mill had been a good guide to them with the 
second. This time when the adjusters came to find out what 
their companies had really insured, they quickly learned that 
the only thing to be done successfully was to pay the loss. 
This was their report to the companies, and the Thnms got 
their second taste of insurance money. 

The course of the couple for the next two or three years in 
buying sawmills, which were always insured, and were equally 
certain to burn up, became the general talk of the wide stretch 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 161 

of the country northwest from Oshkosh. People differ as to 
the number of mills which were thus realized upon. Some say 
that there were at least five or six of them. At last officers of 
insurance companies came to the conclusion that by playing 
Thrun's game they were to be the losers. When that decision 
was reached Thrun had bought an old useless mill at Romeo, 
a small town on the Wisconsin Central some seventy-five miles 
northwest of Oshkosh. During the time that the timber was 
being cut away, Romeo had been a prosperous place of i,ooo 
population. When the woodchoppers and sawmill hands left, 
not over forty or fifty people remained. 

Thrun's new mill, without insurance, was practically worth- 
less, and the case to less resourceful people would have seemed 
hopeless. Not so with Mrs. Thrun, however. It appears that 
she conceived the idea of burning the mill and then suing the 
Wisconsin Central for the loss, on the ground that the fire 
had been caused by a spark from a passing locomotive. On 
Sunday night the Romeo sawmill went up in smoke, as the 
others had done before. Suit was at once instituted against the 
Wisconsin Central for $20,000. The evidence against the rail- 
road company was complete, as it always was in these cases. 

When the Wisconsin Central people examined the claim they 
at once decided that it was fraudulent, and that the mills had 
been set on fire for the express purpose of bringing the suit. 
But their belief would amount to little before a jury composed 
of Thrun's associates in the county. A detective was sent to 
Romeo to uncover the fraud and to give the Wisconsin Central 
a basis for fighting the claim. The detective did not detect, 
for he was taken into* camp by the Thruns through the influ- 
ence of a woman. Like Antony at Alexandria, the detective 
forgot all about his quest until he was awakened to the neces- 
sity for action by a sharp letter from the railroad company. 
To square himself with the powers above him, he told the 
officials that the woman with whom he had formed an acquaint- 
ance knew something of the case, but what it was he had been 
unable to discover. The woman was brought to Chicago, but 
the officials were unable to wrench the facts from her. 

It was at this juncture that T. G. Hanson, who was taken to 
Oshkosh on the charge of being a co-conspirator in the insur- 



162 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

ance fraud, came upon the scene. The railroad company 
wanted an intelHgent Swede to commingle with the people at 
Romeo and uncover the mystery of the mill's burning. Han- 
son filled the bill, and was at once employed. A few days 
later a young fellow, evidently just over, walked into Romeo 
and wanted a " yob " as woodchopper. He was as verdant a 
foreigner, to all appearances, as ever disembarked in that part 
of Wisconsin, and that is saying a good deal. Thrun gave him 
work, and he did good service among the pine stumps. 

The newcomer immediately was smitten with the charms of 
the woman who had beguiled the first detective. The two got 
along famously together, and the young Swede developed a 
longing for liquor when in the presence of his charmer. One 
night a pint bottle of whiskey was two-thirds emptied by the 
pair, and, in the confidential state this produced, the woman 
gave away the secret which the railroad company had sought 
so long. Soon afterwards the woodchopper was arrested on 
complaint of the Wisconsin Central for some offense. He in- 
duced Thrun to come to Chicago with him in order that he 
might escape being locked up. Once inside the offices of the 
Wisconsin Central the woodchopper disguise was thrown off, 
and the long array of circumstances he had gathered was un- 
folded to the firebug. 

Then, as he did before the attorney for the Mutual Life 
Insurance Company, Thrun broke down. He not only ac- 
knowledged that he had no just claim against the Wisconsin 
Central, but signed a paper before leaving the office relinquish- 
ing all demands for the loss of his mill. 

The pint bottle, with the whiskey which had been left by the 
woodchopper and the woman that night still in it, is now 
among the archives of the claim department of the Wisconsin 
Central in Chicago. The whiskey that is gone represents just 
$20,000. 

Hanson had done so well in his initial case that he was re- 
tained in the employ of the Wisconsin Central claim depart- 
ment, and has since made an enviable record. He has enjoyed 
the full confidence of the officials, and nothing has occurred 
up to the recent developments in the big insurance fraud to 
indicate that he was not thoroughly honest. Even now they 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 163 

profess confidence in his integrity and believe that he will come 
out of the ordeal unscathed. 

The failure of the attempt to filch money from the Wisconsin 
Central put a quietus on the plans of the Thruns for six months. 
The couple continued to live at Romeo in a ramshackle house, 
which was one of the few vestiges left of the town's more pros- 
perous period. There was nothing more to be gained from 
fire-insurance companies. But life insurance ofifered a most 
alluring inducement for swindling. All that was needed was 
to get the chief actor insured for a large amount, and he was to 
disappear. His widow was then to collect the value of the 
policies, divide the money among the co-conspirators, and then 
rejoin her husband in the mining regions of Idaho. 

The first plan which suggested itself to the conspirators was 
to have Thrun appear to fall overboard from one of the steam- 
ers trading between Green Bay and Chicago. This was ac- 
cepted as the easiest way, and Thrun suddenly manifested a 
great interest in life insurance. Local life-insurance agents 
were as eager for their commissions as the fire insurance men 
had been, and it was not long before Thrun had policies for 
$57,000, some of them in the most influential companies of the 
country. The risks were accepted by the various offices, with 
the exception of the Equitable Life of New York, whose 
inspector threw out the application because he could see no 
good reason why a man in Thrun's apparent circumstances 
should carry so heavy an insurance. 

One evening in the midsummer of 1892 a man with a heavy 
beard, a broad-brimmed slouch hat, and an ill-fitting suit of 
clothes, accompanied by a sharp-looking young man, boarded 
one of the Goodrich steamers, bound from Green Bay to 
Chicago. The same man with the same long beard disem- 
barked from the steamer upon its arrival there. All night long 
the bearded man had watched for a chance to fall overboard 
in such a way that a passenger with a smooth face, a derby 
hat, and a good suit of clothes would be left on deck. The 
old slouch hat was to have been dropped from the deck when 
the sharp young man sounded the cry of " Man overboard ! " 
The watchmen on the steamer did their duty so well that the 
scheme was balked. 



164 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

Two more trips the same couple made between Green Bay 
and Chicago, but Thrun was not to die by being drowned. 
The boat watchmen prevented that fate. 

It was then that the more horrible fate of being burned to 
death in his dwelling at Romeo was allotted to him by the 
conspirators. Mrs. Thrun, it appears, planned the details. The 
house was to burn down. Thrun was to disappear and bones 
were to be found among the ashes. To carry out successfully 
this project required witnesses who could be depended upon 
to prove Thrun's death to the satisfaction of the insurance com- 
panies. The circle of the conspiracy was enlarged to take in 
two of Thrun's associates at Romeo. The legal side of the 
case had to be looked after, so that the claims on the policies 
might be valid, and also that, in case of failure, the conspirators 
would not suffer the penalty they deserved for the crime. As 
to the parties who entered into the conspiracy the confession 
of Thrun left no doubt. It was a compact organization, and 
arrangements were promptly completed for the event which 
was to blot out Ferdinand Jules Thrun as a legal entity in 
human existence. 

Thrun's house at Romeo took fire the night of October 28th, 
1892. As the flames were working their way toward the roof 
Thrun rushed into the burning structure and was not seen 
again. 

" I have some valuable papers in the house," he cried to the 
bystanders as he disappeared, " and I must get them." 

The next morning when the people of Romeo began to poke 
around in the ashes of the burned building, they uncovered the 
bones of a human being. Thrun had been there the night 
before and was gone. He had been seen to go towards the 
house and here were his bones. The coroner's jury was sum- 
moned, heard the statements of the people who had been at 
the fire, and found a verdict that F. J. Thrun had been burned 
to death. The three witnesses who had testified that they had 
seen Thrun enter the house to rescue his valuables were N. 
L. Kaudy, George Luchtman, and Charles Herbert. They 
were all asleep at the house at the time the fire broke out. Mrs. 
Thrun was visiting friends in an adjoining town when she 
received a dispatch to come home and that her husband was 
dead. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 165 

" I am aware," she calmly said to the representatives of the 
life companies, '* that some people say my husband is not dead. 
All I know is that the men who were with him that night say 
that he was burned in the house, and the coroner's jury has 
said that he was dead. All I ask is that you satisfy yourselves, 
gentlemen, as to his death. I am in no hurry. I can wait 
until you are ready to pay me. If my husband is alive, as you 
say he is, you must produce him. I would rather have him 
back than have the money. But if he is dead I am entitled to 
what is due on the policies." 

All the cross-questioning of expert underwriters who had 
been trained in the wiles of life-insurance crooks did not dis- 
compose Mrs. Thrun. She was cool and collected throughout 
an ordeal which would have broken down any ordinary man 
or woman. Subjected to the same test afterward, her hus- 
band went to pieces almost at the outset. 

"The poor man was burned to death," she said at once, 
although the dispatch had told nothing of there being a fire. 
She had with her the insurance policies on Thrun's life. Some 
women would have overdone the thing by a profusion of tears 
and sobs. Mrs. Thrun did nothing of the kind. She pro- 
fessed sorrow at her husband's death, put on her widow's 
weeds, and started in to collect the insurance. Soon after- 
wards she removed to Fredonia, a small town about thirty 
miles from Milwaukee. 

Six weeks elapsed before serious doubts as to the fate of 
Thrun began to be aroused. When it was discovered that 
the bones found in the ashes were those of an old skeleton 
the doubts ripened into certainty. The insurance companies 
prepared to fight the claims, and on December 226. the case was 
turned over to the Pinkerton detective agency. All were 
united in the search for the man who had taken the star part 
in the fraud. In January, 1893, Mrs. Thrun, still wearing her 
widow's weeds, appeared at the offices of the insurance people 
in Chicago and insisted upon payment of her claim. The 
policies were transferred to the hands of Hanson for collection, 
but in view of the well-founded doubts of the underwriters 
and the significant rumors afloat, he undertook to compromise. 
Some of the companies were induced to pay ten per cent, of the 
face value of their policies in exchange for those contracts. 



166 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

Apparently realizing that the conspiracy had failed, Hanson 
suddenly changed front Perhaps in order to save himself, if 
guilty, he entered into a contract with the ^tna Life of Hart- 
ford to produce Thrun within ninety days. At the same time 
Hanson insisted on the company paying lo per cent, on its 
policies of $15,000 (life and accident). This offer the Chicago 
manager energetically decHned. Hanson made a pretense to 
be at work looking for Thrun, but told the insurance com- 
pany that he had not been able to locate him. At the end of 
the time specified in the contract he appeared again at the 
office. This time he is said to have offered to produce Thrun 
in short order if immunity from prosecution were given the 
fugitive. 

" Produce your man," General Agent Lynas said to Hanson, 
" and we will settle the question of prosecution afterward." 

Hanson left the office in a rage. In all he secured about 
$4,000. The Mutual Life, which paid over 10 per cent, of its 
poHcy of $10,000 for a settlement, soon regretted the hasty 
step and joined eagerly in the search. 

Convinced that the easiest way to trace Thrun's where- 
abouts was to watch the correspondence between the fugitive 
and his wife, the detectives began work at Fredonia. As was 
suspected, Thrun had gone into the wilds of Northern Wis- 
consin at first and had drifted thence into the far West. From 
Montana he was traced over nearly every State in the Missis- 
sippi Valley. He had come to Chicago and from there had 
drifted towards the South. When he anchored in New Or- 
leans he worked as a day laborer, and his entire surroundings 
indicated that he had but one object in life, and that was to 
escape arrest. Everywhere he felt that detectives were on his 
track. His only correspondent was his wife, and she addressed 
her letters to R. L. Harris. With that clew a detective was 
at the post-office window one day when he called for his mail. 
The letter received at the time was not from his wife, how- 
ever. It was from the Pinkerton agency in Chicago, and as 
it was handed to him he was placed under arrest. 

William Beck, who had been employed by the Mutual Life 
of New York in the search, went to New Orleans and brought 
back the prisoner, who seemed to be relieved by his arrest. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 167 

On his arrival in Chicago he was taken to the office of Gordon 
E. Sherman, in the Ashland Block, where he was subjected 
to a fire of cross-questioning which soon brought out all the 
facts regarding the great fraud. Put to the test, Thrun broke 
down in Mr. Sherman's office, and told of the steamboat 
scheme as leading up to the burning of his house. This con- 
fession was made March 17th, 1893. The arrest of the con- 
spirators followed, but they were not tried until December 8th, 
of that year. A verdict of acquittal was returned in the cases 
of Hanson, Follett, and Kaudy, the parties mainly implicated 
in the confession. Apparently the jury believed them while 
they refused to believe Thrun. But as the charge of con- 
spiracy failed, Thrun was allowed his discharge with the rest 
of the gang. 

THE MARIANO RUBIO CASE. 

From a full and carefully prepared report of this remark- 
able case, in the Coast Review, San Francisco, the following 
particulars are obtained: 

On the 3d day of March, A. D. 1869, Miguel Noe made 
application to the Manhattan Life Insurance Company to in- 
sure the life of one Mariano Rubio, in the sum of $15,000, 
on an ordinary life policy, to be made payable to Noe, who 
claimed to be a creditor of the said Mariano Rubio. 

The application was presented in the regular form; Rubio 
was properly examined, the application accepted by the com- 
pany, and a poHcy issued for the sum of $15,000. Rubio, the 
assured, was at that time a resident of the county of San Luis 
Obispo, California. The premiums upon the policy were 
regularly paid up to March 23d, 1880. 

On July 1st, 1879, the policy was regularly and duly assigned 
by Miguel Noe to a leading lawyer of the city of San Francisco, 
Mr. Tully R. Wise, who thereupon became the lawful owner 
for a good and sufficient consideration. By private arrange- 
ment, however, between Noe and Wise, the former was to re- 
ceive one-half of the proceeds of the policy, should it ever be 
collected. 

On the 23d day of October, 1880, there was presented to 
the Manhattan Life Insurance Company the following proofs 



168 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

of the death of Mariano Rubio, which it was alleged had occur- 
red in the manner stated by the witnesses in the affidavits here- 
after noted: 

" Notice is hereby given to the Manhattan Life Insurance Company 
of New York, that Mariano Rubio, of San Luis Obispo, county of 
San Luis Obispo, Cal., has deceased; that said Mariano Rubio was 
the same person insured by said Manhattan Life Insurance Com- 
pany in the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars, for the term of his 
natural life, by their policy of insurance number 27,671, dated March 
5, 1869, and that under the terms and conditions of said policy, the 
same becomes payable to me, as the lawful holder and owner of said 
policy; and I hereby declare that my interest in said policy is to the 
full amount of $15,000, and do further declare that the statements in 
the annexed certificates A, B and C are correct. The proof of said 
death and my claim under the before-mentioned policy, I answer as 
follows: Name of deceased, Mariano Rubio; residence, San Luis 
Obispo County, California; occupation, farmer; place and date of 
birth, Mexico, March i, 1824; place and date of death, on his way 
from Los Angeles to the State of Nevada, somewhere in November, 
1879. Have been acquainted with the deceased fifteen years; last No- 
vember said Rubio and one Gonzales, with others, left Los Angeles 
County for Nevada, and were lost on the way, and died from exhaus- 
tion. Their bodies were found about six days after their separation 
from the other parties, and were buried on the spot where they were 
found." 

Dated at San Francisco, October 23d, 1880. Signed and 
sworn to before Commissioner of Deeds, Holland Smith, by 
Tully R. Wise, assignee, who made oath that the foregoing 
statements by him made were true and full, to the best of his 
knowledge, recollection and behef. Certificates " A " and " B " 
annexed, being for the attending physician's and the under- 
taker's statements, of course were left blank. Certificate " C," 
however, the statement of an acquaintance of deceased, was 
subscribed to by one Andus Sanderfiel, who testified that he 
had known Mariano Rubio since 1850; and that the latter had 
died in Nevada from exposure, as stated in the accompanying 
affidavit. 

Accompanying the above statements regarding the decease 
of Mariano Rubio, and apparently relied upon to corroborate 
them, was affidavit made by Rafael Peralta and Maximiano 
Arce, who stated under oath that they left Los Angeles to go 
to Nevada with Mariano Rubio on the 13th day of November, 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 169 

1879, ^^^ during the trip Mariano Rubio and a man named 
Gonzales separated from them, and about the 27th of Novem- 
ber, the former two lost their way, as Peralta and Maximiano 
supposed, and " six days after," the affidavit goes on to say, 
"we came upon their dead bodies, and we buried them about 
280 miles from here, and we can now go to the spot. Mariano 
Rubio I knew for a long time; he was an old man, and his 
age I do not know, but he must have been between fifty and 
sixty." 

The affidavit containing the above statement was begun in 
the plural, and in the last two sentences was written in the 
first person singular. It was signed by both Maximiano Arce 
and Rafael Peralta, in the presence of W. H. Gray, Notary 
Public, in Los Angeles, October 6th, 1880. Attached to the 
same affidavit was one subscribed to by Francisco Macon, who 
testified that he knew the parties above named, and knew that 
Mariano left that neighborhood (Los Angeles) with them in 
accordance with the above affidavit. Senor Ygnacio Sepul- 
veda, Superior Judge of Los Angeles county, certified that W. 
H. Gray was a notary public in and for that county at the time 
the above affidavits were taken, and that his signature was 
genuine. 

Detective Harry Morse was engaged to look up the various 
parties who had a personal knowledge of Rubio's death, and 
soon learned that one Jose Lopez had accompanied Rubio to 
Sonora about the time at which his alleged death took place, 
in the desolation of Death Valley. A detective was sent to 
Mexico, and finally the long lost Rubio was found alive, in 
excellent health, and moreover newly married, in Autlan, in 
the State of Jalisco. 

Meanwhile, on the 6th of December, 1881, suit was brought 
by Tully R. Wise against the Manhattan Life Insurance Com- 
pany, in the Superior Court of San Francisco, to recover the 
sum of $15,000, with interest thereon from the 30th day of 
November, 1879, ^-nd the further sum of $407.35, with interest 
thereon from the 23d day of March, 1880, and for costs. The 
complaint set forth the statement of the insurance of Mariano 
Rubio by the defendant, the interest of Miguel Noe and of 
the plaintiff; and the statement of Rubio's death as given in 
the proof of death and in the narratives of Maximiano Arce 



170 . MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

and Peralta. An answer signed by Mr. Landers, as repre- 
sentative of the defendant company, denying the claim, was 
filed in January, 1882, by Messrs. McAllister & Bergin, attor- 
neys for the defendant. Soon after Messrs. McAllister & 
Bergin received a letter from the U. S. Consul at Mazatlan, 
under date of January 30th, 1882, in which the following 
appeared. 

"I have the pleasure to report the successful completion of the 
commission entrusted me by you, to obtain proofs of the existence of 
Mariano Rubio, whose life had been insured in the Manhattan Life 
Insurance Company in favor of Miguel Noe, and whose death has 
been claimed to have taken place. 

" I despatched Mr. Campbell Ford to Autlan for the purpose of 
obtaining affidavits, and to-day received a document from him, prop- 
erly authenticated by the U. S. Consul at Manzanillo, which proves 
beyond doubt the existence of Rubio. Mr. Ford writes me that 
Rubio is about to get married, and is in perfect health." 

Accompanying the above letter were the proceedings of 
voluntary jurisdiction instituted by Mariano Rubio to demon- 
strate the identity of his person. On the margin was the seal 
of the Revenue Department of the Sixth Canton of the State 
of Jalisco. The evidence was taken at Autlan, January 13th, 
1882, and signed by Rosendo Hijar de Haro: 

To the Court of First Instance—!, Mariano Rubio, of lawful age, 
widower, and resident of this vicinity, as the best mode of proceeding, 
depose and set forth: 

" On the 23d of March, 1879, the Manhattan Life Insurance Com- 
pany, established in San Francisco, State of (Upper) California, one 
of the United States, insured my life, the respective policy being 
fixed in the sum of Fifteen Thousand Dollars, on account of Senor 
Don Miguel Noe, resident in the said City of San Francisco; and 
intervening in that contract, besides the Senor Noe, his attorney 
Huais, whose name I do not remember, two agents of the said com- 
pany and myself, and the Senor Noe having obligated himself to pay 
the premiums (bonus) correspondent to the policy, and to acknowl- 
edge, on my death, in favor of my heirs, the sum of Five Thousand 
Dollars." 

Rubio then set forth that in order to secure as well the 
rights which pertained to him in the said policy, as those which 
the said company might have or desired to make clear, he 
prayed the court to execute such proceedings of voluntary 
jurisdiction as might conduce to the identification of his per- 
son. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 171 

Thereupon such proceedings were had. Rubio's personal 
appearance, age and general qualities were deposed to by wit- 
nesses. It was shown that he was enrolled as a citizen of that 
city for many years of his life, and that from there he came 
to California about thirty years ago, and that in 1880 he re- 
turned to Autlan. Rubio, upon being sworn, told the tale 
of his return home as follows: 

" In the month of March or April of the current year it 
will be two years since he arrived in this place (Autlan), having 
been three months on the road from San Francisco, California, 
to this place; his last place of residence having been the Santa 
Rosa Ranch, in the county of San Buenaventura, CaL, whence 
he departed for the Colorado River, thence touching at Altar, 
in the State Sonora. From this latter place he went to Her- 
mosillo; thence to Guaymas; thence to Alamos; thence to 
Frierte River; thence to Culiacan, in the State of Sinaloa; 
thence to the port of Mazatlan." 

From Mazatlan to Autlan, the route taken by Rubio was 
also described. Continuing, Senor Rubio deposed: 

" It is alike true, that, in order to be able to marry Dona 
Merced Hernandez, I was required to furnish evidence of the 
decease of my first wife. Dona Maria Villasenor, which took 
place in San Francisco, CaL, which evidence was furnished in 
a certificate which was issued to me by the Senor Bishop of 
the aforesaid California." 

It will be observed that both sides up to this time had made 
strong documentary evidence to substantiate their respective 
positions. The plaintiff, Mr. Tully R. Wise, had submitted the 
proofs of the death of Mariano Rubio, and the sworn affida- 
vits of two persons who had buried his remains in the sun- 
heated sands of that far-distant and desolate region known as 
" Death Valley." 

For the defense, the statement of Jose Lopez, who said he 
had gone to Sonora with Rubio, was obtained, and in substan- 
tiation of that statement it was found that a man named 
Mariano Rubio had arrived at Mazatlan and from thence had 
gone to Autlan, Jalisco, his native place, as told by a well- 
known citizen of San Luis Obispo County. 

What would be the result should these two conflicting 



172 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

theories be placed before a jury? A sum of money aggregat- 
ing nearly $20,000 was at stake, besides the moral effect of 
being right or enduring wrong. 

At this crisis, Mr. John Landers, Agent of the Manhattan, 
dispatched Mr. A. Hinz to Mexico, to find Mariano Rubio, 
and produce him in San Francisco. This step was taken in 
April, 1882. Mr. Hinz made a toilsome trip through the 
mountains of Mexico to the city of Autlan, Jalisco. He re- 
turned to San Francisco, after great hardship and expense, 
arriving there on the 29th day of May, 1882. With him he 
brought Mariano Rubio, alive and in good health. 

Senor Mariano Rubio was accompanied by his wife — a 
buxom, brilliant Mexican woman, whom he recently wedded 
in Autlan, his native city. They were soon safely domiciled at 
one of the leading hotels in this city, secure from intrusion 
and supplied with the comforts and necessities of life. On the 
day of their arrival in San Francisco, Senor Rubio, when leav- 
ing the office of the Manhattan Life Insurance Company, on 
California street, came face to face with Mr. Tully R. Wise 
and Senor Miguel Noe, who were conversing together upon 
the sidewalk. The recognition of Rubio by Noe was almost 
instantaneous. The latter gave his hand to Rubio and bade 
him welcome, extending the hospitalities of his home to the 
long-sought-for Mexican. 

But to affirm that Noe was not surprised at the unexpected 
appearance of Senor Rubio would be wide of the truth. The 
latter presented a well-preserved figure for a man buried in 
the scorching sands of Death Valley for three years. What- 
ever splits there had been in his lips were completely healed; 
his tongue did not have the appearance of having been burned 
and blackened by thirst; and his body had so recovered from 
its exhaustion and the advanced stage of decomposition so 
graphically portrayed by Maximiano Arce and Rafael Peralta, 
as to be recognizable by his old friend, Senor Miguel Noe. 

A conference was held in the office of Messrs. McAllister & 
Bergin, Nevada Block, this city, at which were present Mariano 
Rubio, Miguel Noe, Tully R. Wise, John Landers and Mr., 
Bergin. Mr. Wise expressed his entire satisfaction at the 
identity of Rubio, and also his regret at having been led into 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 173 

assuming the questionable position that he occupied. He be- 
lieved that rank perjury had been committed by the parties 
who had alleged that they had buried Rubio, and not only 
condemned them but held that they should be punished. In 
conclusion, he metaphorically " washed his hands o^ the whole 
affair." 

Subsequently, the following document was drawn up and 
filed in the Superior Court: 

In the Superior Court of the State of California, in and for the City 
and County of San Francisco. 

TuLLY R. Wise, Plaintiff, \ 

vs. I 

The Manhattan Life Insurance Company, | 

Defendant. J 

The plaintiff in the above entitled action, being here now fully 
satisfied that Mariano Rubio, named in the complaint in said action, 
is now living, and that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover herein, 
it is hereby stipulated that said action be and it is hereby dismissed, 
and the Clerk of said Court is hereby authorized to enter judgment 
of dismissal in said action. 

(Signed) Tully R. Wise, Plaintiff in Person. 

THE HILLMON CONCEALMENT. 

The cases of Sallie E. Hillmon against the Mutual Life In- 
surance Company, the New York Life, and the Connecticut 
Mutual Life, repeatedly before the courts for a period of thir- 
teen years, have attained a degree of notoriety that could only 
attach to one of the most desperate legal struggles in the his- 
tory of jurisprudence. The contention on the part of the com- 
panies has cost them more than their liability in the event of 
satisfactorily proved death, and their stubborn resistance has 
been due to their belief that Hillmon has been seen alive in 
various places at different times, that he is still eluding the 
detectives and covering his tracks, and that it is a duty they 
owe to honest policyholders, aside from subserving the ends 
of justice, to resist fraud at any cost. 

When the claim was made and resisted, the first trial took 
place in the United States Circuit Court at Leavenworth, in 
June, 1882. The jury failed to agree, and in 1885 the case 



174 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

was retried in the same court before Judge Brewer with a hke 
result. A third trial was held in Topeka, in February, 1888, 
before Judge Shiras, and a verdict was rendered for the plain- 
tiff. The jury gave a verdict against the Connecticut Mutual 
for $7,530, against the New York Life for $15,060, and against 
the Mutual Life of New York for $15,060. The defendants 
entered a motion for a new trial, and Judge Shiras suspended 
judgment until the June term to allow of the preparation of a 
bill of exceptions. The grounds upon which the new trial 
was asked were as follows: First — Misconduct of the plaintiff 
at the trial. Second — Misconduct on the part of the jury. 
Third — Because the verdict and judgment are contrary to the 
evidence. Fourth — Because the verdict and judgment are con- 
trary to law. Fifth — Because of error of law occurring at the 
trial and duly excepted to by the defendants at the time. Sixth 
— Newly discovered evidence material to the defendants which 
they could not by reasonable diligence have presented upon the 
trial of this action. Failing to secure a new trial, the com- 
panies carried the case to the United States Supreme Court 
upon questions of law. 

The decision of the Supreme Court at Washington reversed 
the judgment in favor of the plaintiff in the Circuit Court at 
Topeka, its action being based upon errors in the admission 
of testimony and in the charge to the jury. After this remand 
the case came up for a fourth trial at Topeka, and ended in 
another disagreement. On the first trial the jury stood ten 
for plaintiff and two against; on the second, they stood six 
to six; on the last trial, seven for the plaintiff and five for the 
companies. 

John W. Hillmon was born in Indiana in 1845, ^^^ there- 
fore at the time of his alleged death near Medicine Lodge, 
Kan., in 1879, was 34 years of age. In October, 1878, he was 
married to Sallie E. Quinn, the plaintiff in the suits against the 
companies. Four months afterwards he started for Wichita, 
in company with his partner, John H Brown, both being 
drovers. Near sundown on March 17, 1879, while encamped 
in a desolate spot on Crooked Creek, a man was shot through 
the head and killed by Brown. He declared that it was acci- 
dental, and had occurred while he was taking a rifle from the 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 175 

wagon. He called upon a farmer in the neighborhood, named 
Briley, to view the body and assist in burial. He asserted 
that the body was Hillmon's, and as the head had been placed 
near the fire, the features were burned and charred beyond 
recognition. Afterward when the body was exhumed and 
taken to Lawrence for identification, it was noted that the 
corpse had a full set of regular teeth, whereas Hillmon's were 
irregular, and one had been lost. Confronted with the dental 
evidence, Brown broke down, and confessed that Hillmon was 
alive, that a conspiracy had been formed in December, 1878, 
between Hillmon, Mrs. Hillmon's cousin, Levi Baldwin, and 
himself to defraud the insurance companies. Baldwin was to 
furnish the money for the first year's premiums, and Brown 
and Hillmon were to arrange for the latter's disappearance. 
Brown alleged that the man who was killed in order to provide 
a body to be palmed off as Hillmon's, was named Joe Berkley. 
This eventually proved to be false, as it turned out that the 
dead man was Frederick Adolph Walters, a young German 
cigarmaker of Fort Madison, Iowa, who had gone to Law- 
rence in 1878. His remains were identified by his parents 
and sister. Here then was a plain case of murder in which 
Brown and Hillmon were principals, and Mrs. Hillmon and 
Baldwin accessories before the fact. 

In a subsequent confession made by John H. Brown before 
a Notary Public, of Platte County, Missouri, he blamed Hill- 
mon with the shooting. The notary's record is as follows: 

John H. Brown, of lawful age, being duly sworn according to law, 
deposes and says: "My name is John H. Brown; my age thirty 
years. I am acquainted with John W. Hillmon, also Mrs. S. E. 
Hillmon and Levi Baldwin, of Douglas County, Kansas. Have known 
John W. Hillmon for about five years, and have been with him a good 
deal for the last two years. I was with him last March at Wichita, and 
on the trip from there to and around Medicine Lodge, in Barbour 
County, Kansas (where it is claimed that I killed him on the 17th 
of March, 1879). Along about the loth of December, 1878, John W. 
Hillmon, Levi Baldwin and myself talked about and entered into a 
conspiracy to defraud the New York Life Insurance Company and 
the Mutual Life Insurance Company out of some money, to be 
obtained by means of effecting policies on the life of said John W. 
Hillmon. Baldwin was to furnish the money to pay the premiums 
and to keep up the policies in case they had to be renewed. Our 



176 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

original arrangement was to get Hillmon's life insured for $15,000, 
but it was afterwards changed to $25,000. Hillmon and myself were 
to go off southwest from Wichita, Kan., ostensibly to locate a stock 
ranch, but in fact to in some way find a subject to pass off as the 
body of John W. Hillmon, for the purpose of obtaining the insurance 
money aforesaid. We had no definite plan of getting the subject, 
but to in some manner get one. The final termination of the matter 
was the last idea thought of. Our first trip out from Wichita was 
in the last days of December, while the snow was on. We expected 
to find a subject that would appear to be Hillmon frozen to death, 
and that could not be identified except by the clothes and papers 
found upon it, and so I could pass it off as Hillmon. We went 
from Wichita to Medicine Lodge; then direct to Sun City; from 
there to Kinsley; from there to Great Bend, on the Santa Fe Road; 
then to Earned, and to Wichita via Hutchinson. Hillmon and myself 
were entirely alone on this trip. Iliff, of Medicine Lodge, saw Hill- 
mon on this trip. We put up at his stable. I then stayed at Wichita 
until the 4th of March. Hillmon in the mean time went up to Law- 
rence to see his wife, and to get some more money. He returned 
about the first of March, and on the 5th we left on our second trip. 
We went due west to Cowskin Creek, and then west to Harper City, 
then to Medicine Lodge, on by Sun City, and beyond some miles; 
then we turned northeast down Medicine River, to a Camp on Elm 
Creek about eighteen miles north of Medicine Lodge (where Hill- 
mon is claimed to have been killed). We got there about sundown, 
and stayed in camp until the next evening. We overtook a stranger 
on this trip the first day out from Wichita, about two or two and a 
half miles from town, whom Hillmon invited to get in and ride, and 
he (Hillmon) proposed to hire him to work for him on the ranch as 
proposed to be located. This man was with us during all this trip. 
Hillmon proposed to me that this man would do for a subject to 
pass for him. I told him and contended with him that the man 
would not do to pass off for him, giving him various reasons why 
the man would not answer his description, and complained and 
objected because his proposition was to take the man's life, and I 
protested and said that was going beyond what we had agreed, and 
was something I had never before thought of, and was beyond my 
grit entirely. But Hillmon seemed to get more deeply determined, 
and more and more desperate in the matter. Pains were taken not 
to have more than two of us seen together in the wagon. Sometimes 
one and then the other would be kept back out of sight. On his trip 
up to Lawrence Hillmon was vaccinated. His arm was quite bad. 
Hillmon kept at the man until he let him vaccinate him, which he did, 
taking his pocket-knife and using virus from his own arm for the pur- 
pose. He also traded clothes with him, Hillmon first giving him a 
change of underclothing, then traded suits, the one he was killed in. 
The suit he was buried in was a suit Hillmon traded with Baldwin for. 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 177 

This man appeared to be a stranger in the country, a sort of easy-go- 
along fellow, not suspicious or very attentive to anything. His arm 
became very sore, and he got quite stupid and dull. He said his name 
was either Berkley or Burgess, or something sounding like that. We 
always called him Joe. He said that he had been around Fort Scott 
awhile, and had also worked about Wellington and Arkansas City. 
I don't know where he was from, nor where his home or friends were. 
I did not see him at Wichita, that I know of. I had but very little to 
say to the man and less to do with him. He was taken in charge by 
Hillmon and yielded willingly to his will. I dreaded what I thought 
was to be done, and kept out of having any more to do with him 
than was possible. I frequently remonstrated with Hillmon, and tried 
to deter him from carrying out his intention of killing the man. The 
next evening after we got to the camp last named, the man Joe was 
sitting by the fire. I was at the hind end of the wagon, either putting 
feed in the box for the horses or taking a sack of corn out, when I 
heard a gun go ofif. I walked around and saw the man was shot, and 
Hillmon was pulling him away around to keep him out of the fire. 
Hillmon changed a day-book from his own pocket to Joe's, and said 
to me everything was all right and in shape just as he wanted it, and 
that I need not be afraid, but it would be all right. He told me to 
get on a pony and go down to a ranch about three-quarters of a mile 
and get some one to come up. He took Joe's valise and started 
north. This was about sundown. We had no arrangements about 
communicating with each other. He first proposed to do so, but I 
told him I did not want to know where he was; that in case I should, 
I might find out some other way. I have never heard a word from 
him since that time. At Lawrence Mrs. Hillmon gave me to under- 
stand that she knew where Hillmon was, and that he was all right. 
The man over whom an inquc^' was held at camp, afterwards at 
Medicine Lodge and at Lawr -ce, Kan., was the man Joe Burgess or 
Berkeley, killed by Hillmon as related above, and John W. Hillmon 
I believe to be still alive; at least he left our camp and went north, as 
stated above. After killing Joe, Hillmon said he would assume the 
name of William Marshall. Baldwin, his wife, and Mrs. Hillmon 
know all about this." 

The last trial of this remarkable case, which took place in 
the United States Circuit Court at Topeka, before Judge A. 
D. Thomas, occupied a period of nine or ten weeks in the 
early part of 1895. With regard to the question of identity 
it was shown that while Hillmon's height was five feet nine 
inches, Walters's height was five eleven and a half. There were 
material differences between the hair, the teeth, and the weight, 
and one had several distinctive scars. While eight witnesses 
declared that the body in dispute was Hillmon's, twenty-one 



178 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

of defendant's witnesses testified that it was not Hillmon's, and 
twenty-six others, including Miss Alvina D. Kasten, who was 
engaged to be married to Walters, insisted that the body was 
Walters's. 

Charles Hay testified that he saw Hillmon alive near Lead- 
ville in July, 1879, and the following witnesses declared that 
he was alive after March 17th, 1879, the date at which Hillmon 
is claimed to have been shot: Richard Helm, of Albuquerque, 
N. M., J. D. Benton, of New Mexico, and W. E. Northrup of 
New Mexico, who saw Hillmon alive in 1884 and 1885. The 
following witnesses who knew Hillmon intimately in the 70's, 
having hunted on the plains with him, identified him when 
arrested and imprisoned in 1889, in Tombstone, Arizona: 
John H. Mathias, Geo. S. Baker, Chas. W. Hart. 

Mrs. Hillmon in 1882 admitted before five witnesses that 
her husband was alive. Mrs. Geo. A. Nichols (Hillmon's sis- 
ter), Geo. A. Nichols and W. W. Nichols (Hillmon's two 
brothers-in-law), Mr. S. D. Nixon and Mrs. Maggie Nixon, 
all testify that Mrs. Hillmon, at the first trial of the case at 
Leavenworth, went to the Continental hotel, where the above- 
named parties were stopping, to find out what they intended 
to testify to in the case, as to the appearance of her husband, 
and when told that they would describe his defective teeth 
and the scar on the hand, exclaimed, " If you, his sister, you, 
his brothers-in-law, and you, his friends, mean to testify to 
that, then I will go and withdraw my suit, and turn my hus- 
band over to the authorities." 

On the 15th of September, 1879, ^^s. Hillmon went to the 
office of Mr. Wheat, one of the attorneys for the plaintiff, who 
lived in Leavenworth, and demanded from him the policies, 
which he then held, stating that she wanted to ''back out" 
from suing the companies; Mr. Wheat refused to give them 
up unless he was paid $10,000, claiming a lien to that extent. 
Mrs. Hillmon finding that she could not obtain the policies 
to hand back to the companies, executed four releases, the 
following being a copy of one, and all being identical, except 
the name of the company, number of the policy, and amount: 



MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 179 

Lawrence, Kansas, Sept. 15, 1879. 

In consideration of one dollar to me in hand paid, the receipt 
whereof is hereby acknowledged, I hereby release, surrender and 
acknowledge satisfaction in full of all claims against the Mutual Life 
Insurance Company of New York, by reason of policy No. 195,132, 
issued by said company, dated December 10, 1878, and for the sum 
of ten thousand dollars on the life of my husband, John W. Hillmon, 
and hereby enter satisfaction in full, and order the dismissal of any 
and all suits or proceedings commenced or that may hereafter be 
commenced by any person or persons, in my behalf, for the collection 
of the same. 

(Signed.) " S. E. HILLMON." 

Attest . I W- J- Bachan, 
Attest . I jQjj^ pj Brown. 

These releases were signed without the payment of one 
dollar, or the promise of the payment of one dollar. They 
were signed upon one condition, namely, that the companies 
should agree of themselves, not to undertake the prosecution 
of John W. Hillmon, Mrs. Hillmon, Levi Baldwin and John 
H. Brown; but with the understanding that if the State prose- 
cuted them, the companies would not withhold the evidence 
which was then in their hands. 

The insurance companies claimed that a conspiracy was 
entered into by John W. Hillmon, Levi Baldwin and John 
H. Brown, for th'e purpose of insuring Hillmon's life; in 
pursuance thereof securing the body of another man and 
palming it of¥ upon the companies as that of Hillmon, and 
then collecting the insurance money upon Hillmon's Hfe and 
dividing it among themselves. The companies also claimed 
that Mrs. Hillmon became a co-conspirator with them at the 
time of the inquest, and continued to be such from that time 
on; and that also others, on account of their pecuniary inter- 
est, became co-conspirators engaged in the endeavor to collect 
the insurance money on the life of Hillmon, Hillmon not 
having lost his life. 

In support of this charge of conspiracy. Dr. Phillips testified 
that Levi Baldwin asked him all about life insurance, the 
length of time after death before decomposition set in, and 
the appearance of a man after being buried; and also said, 
" Doc, wouldn't it be a good plan to insure some fellow's life, 



180 MYSTERIOUS DISAPPEARANCES. 

have him disappear, and go South and get the body of some 
' greaser ' and pass it off on the insurance companies for him? " 
Mr. Blythe, an attorney of Tonganoxie, testified that Baldwin 
and Hillmon came to him one day and asked all sorts of ques- 
tions as to the manner of collecting insurance money in the 
event of death. Baldwin told him that he meant to insure 
Hillmon's life, and wanted to know how he should go about 
it. Mr. Blythe explained that as he was not a life-insurance 
agent, it would be better to consult those who were engaged 
in the business. Mr. Selig, Mr. G. W. E. Griffith and Major 
Wiseman testified that Baldwin and Hillmon went, unsolicited, 
and made application for $50,000 insurance upon the life of 
Hillmon, $25,000 of which was issued; that Baldwin and Hill- 
mon repeatedly asked what form of statement had to be made 
out in order to collect the money in the event of Hillmon's 
death. Mr. Carr testified that Baldwin told him in March, 
1879, that he and Hillmon were mixed up in a scheme to get 
hold of " a lot of money." 

As already remarked, the successive suits, the adjudicature 
of the highest court in the land, the efforts made in tracing 
the fugitive in Arizona and Mexico, and the employment of 
all the legal and detective machinery available, must have 
cost the companies more than $25,000, the amount of the 
claim. They have never accepted the averment that the man killed 
near Medicine Lodge in March, 1879, was John W. Hillmon. 
They have always contended and they are firm in the belief 
that it was another man who was killed, and that the parties 
to a criminal conspiracy undertook to palm off the body as 
Hillmon's, while they facilitated Hillmon's escape and con- 
cealment. It is now seventeen years since Hillmon disap- 
peared, and if he is still lingering among the living he has 
well preserved his disguise. In the event of proof of his 
death the companies have of course been ready to meet their 
obligations; but until such proof is complete and satisfactory, 
or until the courts in their final judgment make payment com- 
pulsory, they are justified in resistance. 



HOMICIDE. 181 



HOMICIDE. 

POISONING, AND MORE VIOLENT FORMS OF ASSASSINATION. 

In revolving our many-sided picture, we next come to the 
tragic side, the portion whereon the darker shadows fall. Here, 
to the eagerness of the speculator, and the calculation of the 
gamester, is added the fiendishness of deliberately planned and 
relentlessly pursued homicide; and in view of the fact that the 
victim is generally selected from that relationship or that friend- 
ship which will sustain an insurable interest, we may well ex- 
claim — 

" Murder most foul, as in the best it is; 
But this most foul, strange, and unnatural." 

If we scan the biography of the homicides who have left their 
names on the scroll of infamy, we find that many of them were 
patterns of gentlemanly grace and fastidious polish. But under 
the surface show of refinement and complaisance was the ser- 
pent's fang. The velvet glove concealed a bloody hand ; gilding 
and sugar-coating masked the poison that had been smuggled 
into the salutary drug prescribed as a restorative. Probably no 
one of this class ever equalled Thomas GrifHth Wainwright, 
the literary coxcomb, who, under the nom de plume of Janus 
Weathercock, wrote such slashing reviews and spicy criticisms 
in the English magazines, on art and artists, the drama, the 
opera, and the ballet. Of fine person and fascinating manners, 
great fluency and ready wit, he was not only an acknowledged 
leader of fashion, but such a favorite in aristocratic circles, 
that even the gentle and amiable Charles Lamb could not 
help writing of him, " kind, light-hearted Janus Weathercock." 
Nor did he ever sparkle with such unwonted gayety, or so out- 
shine his accustomed elegance, as while the poison he was 
secretly administering was speeding on its deadly errand. It 
is nearly a half a century since Helen Abercrombie's young life 



182 HOMICIDE. 

was sacrificed by this brother-in-law, in hope of gaining ;£ 18,000, 
but many another half-century will roll around before the cir- 
cumstance will be forgotten in England. Whoever follows his 
career can easily understand why Mr. Francis observes of him, 
" It was death to stand in his path; it was death to be his 
friend; it was death to occupy the very house with him. Well 
might his associates join in that portion of the litany which 
prays to be delivered from battle and murder and sudden death, 
for sudden death was ever by his side." 

Yet, in point of resolute daring and in frequency of repeti- 
tion, Wainewright's methods of assassination w^ere tame com- 
pared with those of William Palmer, the sporting surgeon, a 
history of w^hose crimes is here presented to the reader. 

WILLIAM PALMER, OF RUGELY. 

In the valley of the Trent, on the line of the Northwestern 
Railway of England, lies the quiet, pretty town of Rugely. It 
is about midway between the great sporting grounds of Derby 
and of Chester, and is well known for its jockeys and its horse- 
fairs. 

Among the fields and the trees which make the town — ^like 
almost every English country town — enchantingly beautiful, is 
an old square house of brick, standing on the shores of the 
river, with gardens sloping to the margin. With the genera- 
tions to come it will very likely be called a haunted house, and 
the yews which darken the door-step will nourish murderous 
memories in their shadow. 

A wood merchant lived years ago in this square brick house, 
who made the building what it is only after acquiring, very 
suddenly and very mysteriously, a large fortune. His business 
was not extensive; he was known to be a betting man; yet he 
lived extravagantly, reared a family of five sons and two daugh- 
ters, and one day suddenly and mysteriously died. 

Of the five sons, one became a clergyman, one a grain mer- 
chant, another an advocate, a fourth a lumber merchant, and 
the fifth, whose name was William Palmer, studied chemistry 
in Liverpool, and became a surgeon. 

At the time (1856) public attention was attracted to the 
crimes which have made his name famous. Palmer was only 



HOMICIDE. 183 

thirty-five years of age ; he was a man of fine presence and win- 
ning manners; he had played, in his youth, the country roue, 
and had married, some years before, the natural daughter of 
Colonel Brooks, of the East India service. 

Colonel Brooks was a man of fortune. He was mysteriously 
assassinated not long after the marriage of his daughter. By 
his will, he had bestowed upon the mother of his child a life- 
lease of his estate. The daughter (Mrs. William Palmer) was 
remarkable for her beauty as well as for her kindness of heart, 
and the poor people of Rugely have always a good word for 
the memory of Mrs. Palmer. 

William Palmer seemed to give himself up to two fancies of 
a very opposite nature, to wit: horse-racing and chemical ex- 
periments in his private laboratory. 

The first involved a full purse; his private resources became 
speedily exhausted; he appealed to his mother-in-law, who, 
anxious in regard to her daughter's happiness, and suspicious 
of the dissolute habits of her son-in-law, left her own home, and 
came to establish herself with her daughter at Rugely. Four 
days after her entrance in Palmer's house she died suddenly. 
The property of which she was in possession passed into the 
hands of Mrs. Palmer, and under the control of the husband. 

New stables were built at Rugely, new horses purchased, 
new bets entered, new acquaintances made, and new debts con- 
tracted. The Jewish money-lenders of London were appealed 
to, and money loaned at enormous rates. 

Meantime four of his children died suddenly, at intervals of 
one or two years. Only one remained as heir to the fortune of 
the mother, which at her death was to pass to the child. 

Mr. William Palmer, as a measure of precaution, secured an 
insurance upon the life of Mrs. Palmer for $75,000. The phy- 
sicians testified to her perfect good health, and the premium 
paid was not exorbitantly high, but was more than he, at that 
time, was able to pay, as he was so pressed for money that he 
drew a bill, which was actually discounted on the security of 
the policies, so that he, with criminal ingenuity, contrived to 
make the policies pay for themselves. 

A troublesome claim of i/oo (a debt of honor) was hold 
against Palmer by one of his sporting friends named Bladen. 



184 HOMICIDE. 

This gentleman visited Rugely to collect the sum, was a guest 
of Palmer, fell sick at his house, was visited by an old physi- 
cian (the family adviser of Palmer), was drugged, and died. 
The debt was canceled, and the old physician reported the 
case as one of cerebral fever. 

In a little time, perhaps after a year, Mrs. Palmer took a 
slight cold on a pleasure excursion to Liverpool; the old 
family physician and a deaf nurse attended her; the husband 
insisted upon active treatment; the poor la.dy lingered for a 
month, and died. 

The pleasant old physician made out his certificate of the 
cause and time of her decease; it was signed by the nurse, and 
accepted by the authoritie-s of Rugely, who all admired and 
flattered that "game" fellow, Wilham Palmer, Esquire! 

The London life-assurance companies paid their losses, and 
the surgeon Palmer was again afoot for new enterprises on 
" the Derby." But he found occasion shortly to negotiate, 
through his Jew friends o-f London, for insurance upon the life 
of a brother, Walter Palmer, who had been addicted to drink- 
ing, who had been threatened with delirium tremens, but who, 
subject to the special guardianship of his brother William and 
of the " old physician of the family," it was hoped and affirmed 
by competent examiners would live for many years to come. 

The insurance was effected for the sum of £13,000. The 
surgeon Palmer employed a man to attend upon his brother, 
and to supply regularly all his wants. Even his own inclination 
for the bottle was not forgotten by the new guardian; Walter 
Palmer resisted, however, the influences of gin, until a visit 
from the brother — in the autumn of 1855 — supplied some 
stronger stimulant, and the wretched drunkard died. 

Application was made to the London office for the- payment 
of the amount insured, but refused. The application was not 
renewed. There were those who had seen Palmer on the turf 
who spoke suspiciously of this circumstance; but who should 
venture to accuse William Palmer, Esquire, of foul dealing? 
Did he not own one of the best studs in the country? Had 
he not been on terms of familiarity with Lord Bentinck? Was 
he not regular and prompt in his contributions to the parish 
church of Rugely? Did not the rector dine with him from 



HOMICIDE. 185 

time to time, and admire his great horses Strychnine and 
Chicken? Was he not become altogether an EngHsh country 
gentleman ? 

At the Shrewsbury races, in November, 1855, appeared with 
Palmer a young man of about twenty-eight, named John Par- 
sons Cook. Both had large stakes involved, but with different 
results. The " Polestar," Cook's horse, won, by which Cook 
received £2,000. " Chicken," Palmer's horse, was beaten, by 
which Palmer was utterly wrecked. He had taken immense 
bets, with the hope of winning enough to pay the suits on 
the £13,000 forged notes then pressing upon him. These bets 
turned against him, and exposure became imminent. 

But this was not the only difficulty. Palmer had borrowed 
largely of Cook, who, besides his late winnings, was possessed 
of a fortune of about £12,000. By fair or foul means, he had 
obtained what purported to be Cook's signature to notes to a 
very large amount. Cook's sudden death could not be other 
than advantageous to him, in the circumstances under which he 
was placed. It was then, according to the prosecution, that 
he took measures to bring this death about* 

On the 5th of November, Cook took lodgings at Rugely, 
the town where Palmer lived. His life had been previously 
dissipated, and he had been suffering much from ulcerations in 
the throat, the result of venereal excesses. On the 14th of 
November, the day after the races. Cook and Palmer were 
drinking together at the inn at Shrewsbury, where, according to 
Palmer's statements at the time. Cook was more or less affected 
by liquor. Palmer, towards the end of the evening, was seen 
mixing some colorless Hquid in the passage leading to his 
room, and shortly afterwards gave some brandy-and-vvater, 
mixed by himself, to Cook, who drank it, and immediately cried 
out that there was something in it — ^that " it burned his throat 
dreadfully." 

Palmer immediately took the glass, drank what remained, 
and handed it to a third person to try, who found, however, 
nothing left. Cook was soon after taken very sick, vomiting 
largely. He recovered, however, enough to be on the race- 

* Wharton & Stille's Medical Jurisprudence. 



186 HOMICIDE. 

course the next day. The day after (Friday, the 15th), he 
arrived at Rugely with Palmer. He continued unwell through- 
out that and the next day (Saturday), when Palmer gave him 
some coffee, after which he vomited. On Sunday, Palmer 
caused some broth to be made, which was given to Cook. 
This broth was tasted by the chambermaid at the inn, who was 
by it made very ill. On Saturday, Palmer sent for Mr. Bam.- 
ford, a practitioner at Rugely, to give his attendance to Cook, 
and on Monday he wrote to Mr. Jones, who practised at 
Lutterworth, telling him that Cook was sick with a bilious 
attack, and asking his medical services also. Certain pills of 
an antibilious character were given by Mr. Bamford to Palmer, 
to be administered to Cook. 

After sending for Mr. Jones, Palmer went to London on busi- 
ness, and returned on the evening of the same day (Monday) 
to Rugely. On his return he went to a druggist, with whom 
he had not been in the habit of dealing, and bought three grains 
of strychnine. When he saw Cook, he administered to him 
pills which purported to have been those prescribed by Bam- 
ford. Cook had, during the day, been much better, and had 
been talking with his jockey and trainer. But an hour after he 
had taken the pills, the inn was roused by the violent ringing 
of his bell, and by the screams — " Murder! Christ have mercy 
on my soul ! " At once the servants gathered in his room, and 
he was found in extreme agony on his bed, beating around him 
with his hands, and in the highest muscular tension. His cry 
was that he would be suffocated, he was agonized with con- 
vulsions, and when a composing drink was given to him, he 
grit his teeth, and snapped at the glass and spoon. His first 
call, when the servants came in, was to send for Palmer. Palmer 
came, and remained with him until six o'clock the next morn- 
ing. 

Between eleven and twelve on that day (Tuesday), Palmer 
went to another druggist, and bought six grains of strychnine 
and a small amount of opium. At three o'clock arrived Mr. 
Jones, the physician from Lutterworth, who was a personal 
friend of Cook's, whom he found much better. That even- 
ing, the two physicians had a consultation with Palmer, Mr. 
Jones declaring that the symptoms were different from those 



HOMICIDE. 187 

described to him by Palmer. Mr. Bamford prepared some ad- 
ditional pills, which were given by him to Palmer, who at night 
administered pills from the same box to Cook; within an 
hour after taking the pills. Cook was attacked in the same way 
as on the previous evening. He was in violent spasms; his 
breathing was almost entirely suspended; his muscular system 
was strung to the highest tension; and he was so rigid that, 
when he cried to be lifted up in bed, this was found to be im- 
possible. So great was this stiffness, that, when lying with his 
face upward, his back arched inward, and only his head and 
heels touched the bed, they bearing his whole weight. He 
cried to be turned over on his side, which was done, when in 
a few moments he died quietly. Palmer, who was sent for 
immediately on the attack, arrived at once, and remained until 
the death. 

Two days afterwards, Mr. Stephens, Cook's stepfather, came 
to Rugely to inquire into the circumstances. He found the 
body still unburied, and a certificate from Mr. Bamford was 
given him, to the effect that the death was by apoplexy. His 
suspicions were excited by his inability to find Cook's betting- 
book; by a claim set up by Palmer against Cook's estate for 
£4,000; by the anxiety which Palmer showed to make it ap- 
pear that Cook had lately squandered away all his available 
funds ; and by his efforts to have the body buried at the earliest 
moment. Mr. Stephens went at once to London, and made 
arrangements for a post-mortem examination. This took place 
at Rugely, in the presence of several medical men, Palmer be- 
ing in attendance. No symptoms of disease were discovered, 
except the ulcers on the tongue, which have been already 
mentioned, and some white granules on the lower part of the 
spine. With some carelessness the stomach and intestines were 
taken out and placed in a jar; and it was noticed, first, that 
while the operator was at work he received a push, com- 
municated apparently through Palmer, which produced some 
disarrangement; and second, that the jar was afterwards re- 
moved by Palmer towards the door, ostensibly for the purpose 
of greater convenience, and was then found with two cuts 
through the parchment which had been placed over its mouth. 
It is clear, however, that its contents had not been tampered 



188 HOMICIDE. 

with, though it was in evidence that Palmer told the boy who 
was employed to drive Mr. Stephens and the jar to the station, 
that he would give iio to see the jar upset. Such was the 
evidence of the prosecution, though on cross-examination the 
witness who testified to the last point seemed to leave it uncer- 
tain whether it was Stephens or the jar that Palmer so much 
desired to see thus disposed of. 

The stomach and intestines were analyzed by Dr. Taylor, 
an eminent toxicologist of London. The result was that a little 
antimony was discovered, but no strychnine or prussic acid. 
Dr. Taylor and Mr. G. Owen Rees certified accordingly, adding 
that it was " now impossible to say whether any strychnine had 
or had not been given just before death." When Dr. Taylor, 
however, became acquainted with the symptoms, he changed 
his opinion, holding, as subsequently advised, that the death 
was produced by strychnine. 

So great was the local excitement, that Parliament, at Lord 
Campbell's suggestion, passed a bill transferring the venue to 
the Metropolitan Court of the Old Bailey, in London. The 
case came on for trial on May 14, 1856. The main strain of 
the trial was on the question whether the non-detection of 
strychnine in the remains was to be conclusive. Testimony, 
though not of the highest order, was adduced by the prisoner 
to prove that it was. On the other hand, the Crown produced 
very high authorities to show that strychnine acts by absorption 
into the blood, and thence it passes into the nervous system; 
that it exhibits itself peculiarly and distinctively by a violent, 
spasmodic convulsion and rigidity of the muscles, particularly 
those of the chest; that death is finally produced by sufifocation; 
and that, as only the excess of poison beyond what is necessary 
to produce death remains in the stomach, no trace is to be found 
when only the minimum dose is given. That Palmer was ac- 
quainted with the way in which the poison acts, was evident 
from the fact of a note-book of his being found, in which the 
page was turned down at a point containing a description of 
death by strychnine. 

From Lord Campbell's charge to the jury we extract the 
following important passages: 



HOMICIDE. 189 

You have evidence of strychnia having been procured by the pris- 
oner on the Monday night before the symptoms of strychnia were 
exhibited by Cook, and, by the evidence of Roberts, undenied and un- 
questioned, that on Tuesday six grains of strychnia were supplied to 
him. Supposing you should come to the conclusion that the symp- 
toms of Cook were inconsistent with death by strychnia: if you think 
that his symptoms are accounted for by merely natural disease, of 
course the strychnia obtained by the prisoner on the Monday evening 
and the Tuesday morning would have no effect; but if you should 
think that the symptoms which Cook exhibited on the Monday and 
Tuesday nights are consistent with strychnia, then a case is made 
out on the part of the Crown. After the most anxious consideration, 
I can suggest no possible solution of the purchase of this strychnia. 
The learned counsel for the prisoner told us in his speech that there 
was nothing for which he would not account. The learned counsel 
did not favor us with the theory which he had formed in his own 
mind with respect to that strychnia. There is no evidence, there is 
no suggestion how it was applied, what became of it. That must not 
influence your verdict, unless you come to the conclusion that the 
symptoms of Cook were consistent with death by strychnia. If you 
come to that conclusion, I should shrink from my duty, I should be 
unworthy to sit here, if I did not call your attention to the inference 
that, if Cook did die from strychnia, that strychnia was administered 
by the prisoner at the bar. . . . 

It appeared that, in the middle of November, Palmer was involved 
in pecuniary difficulties of the most formidable nature; that Cook, the 
deceased, by winning a race, became master of at least ii,ooo; and 
there is evidence, from which the inference may be drawn, that the 
prisoner formed the design of appropriating that money to his own 
use; that he did appropriate the money to the payment of debts 
for which he alone was liable, and, if Cook had survived, the fraud 
must have been exposed. Upon the important question of whether 
Cook died from natural disease or from poison, we have the evidence 
of Sir B. Brodie, and of other most honorable and skillful men, who 
say that, in their opinion, he did not die from natural disease, as they 
know of no natural disease which will account for the symptoms 
attending his death, and many say that they believe the symptoms 
exhibited by him were the symptoms of strychnine. All we know 
respecting strychnine not being in the body is that in that part of the 
body which was analyzed by Dr. Taylor and Dr. Rees they found 
none. 

His Lordship then drew attention to the evidence that the 
deceased had been tampered with by having something put 
into his brandy-and-water, broth, etc., the absence of any sat- 
isfactory explanation of his having bought str\'chnine. and the 
behavior of the prisoner after Cook's death. He said: 



190 HOMICIDE. 

The answer consists of two parts: first, the medical evidence, and 
secondly, the evidence as to facts. With regard to the medical wit- 
nesses on the part of the prisoner, I must observe that, although 
there were amongst them gentlemen of high honor, consummate 
integrity, and profound scientific knowledge, who came here with a 
sincere wish to speak the truth, there were also gentlemen whose 
object was to procure an acquittal for the prisoner. 

His Lordship next read Mr. Herapath's evidence, and, at the 
close of it, remarked: 

Mr. Herapath is a very distinguished chemist, and no doubt says 
what he sincerely thinks. He is of opinion that where there has 
been death by strychnia, strychnia ought to be discovered. But he 
seems to have intimated an opinion that the deceased in this very 
case died by strychnia, and Dr. Taylor did not use proper means to 
discover it. If you are of the opinion that the symptoms were con- 
sistent with death from strychnia, you should consider the evidence 
given in the case, to see whether strychnia had been administered by 
the prisoner at the bar. These are the questions I again put to you. 
If you come to the conclusion that these symptoms were consistent 
with death from strychnia, do you believe that death actually resulted 
from the administration of strychnia, and that strychnia was admin- 
istered by the prisoner at the bar? Do not find a verdict of " guilty " 
unless you believe that the strychnia was administered by the pris- 
oner at the bar; but if you believe that, it is your duty to God and 
man to find the prisoner guilty. 

At the conclusion of this address from the Lord Chief Justice, 
the jury retired from the court. They re-entered their box after 
an absence of one hour and seventeen minutes, having found 
a verdict of guilty. 

The prisoner was subsequently executed, and, though the 
question was greatly agitated, both medical and legal opinion 
have settled down into the belief that the conviction was right. 

The body of Mrs. Ann Palmer, the wife of the prisoner, had 
been lying fifteen months in the grave, under a professional 
burial certificate of death from bilious cholera, when the sudden 
death of Cook, and the detection of antimony in his body, led 
to the exhumation of the body of this lady. " It was found," 
says Dr. Taylor, who conducted the autopsy and examination, 
" that she died from the effects of antimony, which was detected 
in all parts of the body. When the history of the illness which 
preceded death was gone into, it was found that the symptoms 
were consistent with the effects of tartarized antimony, but not 



HOMICIDE. 191 

with those of bihous cholera, or of any other disease. Anti- 
mony had not been prescribed for the deceased during her 
illness, and it was therefore clear that it must have been 
administered to her by some one up to within a short period 
of her death." * Within a little more than six months after 
effecting the insurances on her life, the wife died from poison 
under his immediate superintendence. On her death, the large 
sums insured were claimed by Palmer, and were paid to him 
by the companies. Although there was at the time some sus- 
picion, there was no inquest or inspection, and the body was 
hastily buried. It seems that the general respectability of 
Palmer, his social and professional position, together with the 
two medical certificates of the cause of the wife's death, checked 
any intention which might have existed on the part of the com- 
panies to resist the payment of the policies. 

It was ascertained that the death of Walter Palmer, the 
brother of William, was probably caused by prussic acid. 
Walter had died suddenly, in the presence of his brother Wil- 
liam and another man of doubtful character; and it was proved 
that William had, an hour or two before Walter's death, pur- 
chased at a druggist's a bottle of prussic acid. At the inquest 
held on the body of Walter, it was shown that Palmer had 
directed the man with whom he had placed the brother, after 
the insurance on his life, to give him as much brandy as he 
would take, and to keep a quantity of this spirit by his bedside. 
The brother was a drunkard, but this mode of destroying life 
was too slow for Palmer's purpose. When the necessity for 
money increased, he reverted to the potent poison above men- 
tioned, and suggested that death had been caused by apoplexy. 

Palmer subsequently tried, but ineffectually, to insure, to the 
extent of £25,000, the life of his groom, George Bates, de- 
scribed by him in his application for the insurance as a '' gentle- 
man of independent means;" and he advised a man named 
Cheshire, the postmaster of Rugely, also to efifect life insur- 
ances to the extent of £5,000, and assign the policies to him. 
But for the revelation of facts connected with the death of 
Cook, these two persons, on whose heads a heavy life insur- 
ance value had thus been set, would have been the next victims. 

* Taylor's " Medical Jurisprudence." 



192 HOMICIDE. 

THE GOSS-UDDERZOOK TRAGEDY. 
I. 

A brief announcement appeared in the local columns of a 
Baltimore newspaper, published on the morning of February 
3, 1872, stating that W. S. Goss, residing at No. 314 North 
Eutaw Street, had been burned to death the previous evening, 
in a house on the York Road, about four miles out. The fire 
was supposed to have been caused by an explosion of some 
chemicals with which he was experimenting. The building in 
which the accident occurred was entirely consumed. The 
charred remains were taken out of the burning building by Mr. 
Udderzook, a brother-in-law, aided by some neighbors. 

Four days later the attention of several life-insurance com- 
panies was called to the incident thus briefly related, through 
notifications served upon them in the following form: 

Baltimore, February 7th, 1872. 
This is to notify of the death of W. S. Goss, which occurred in 
the following manner. He was in the habit of going to a place in 
the country, where he was engaged in making samples of a substitute 
for india-rubber. On the evening of his death he went out as usual, 
in company with his brother-in-law, Mr. William Udderzook; and 
when night came on he lit his lamp, one which he has used for some 
time. The lamp burned for awhile, then suddenly went out. He lit 
it several times again, but it refused to burn. Mr. U. told him he 
would go to a neighbor's house and get another lamp, and while he 
was gone, the lamp exploded and set fire to the house, and W. S. G. 
was burned to death. The coroner held an inquest and rendered the 
following verdict: That W. S. Goss came to his death by the explo- 
sion of an oil-lamp. 

A. C. Goss, brother of W. S. Goss. 

The insurance companies directly interested in this matter 
were the underwriters of the following policies, all of which 
were upon the life of Winfield Scott Goss, for the benefit of his 
wife, Eliza Waters Goss: First, an ordinary Hfe policy for 
$5,000, ^vritten by the Mutual Life Insurance Company of 
New York, dated May 21st, 1868. Second, a similar policy 
for $5,000, in the Continental Life Insurance Company of 
New York, dated May 26th, 1871. Third, an accident policy 
in the sum of $10,000, in the Travelers Insurance Company 
of Hartford, dated October i8th, 1871. Fourth, a Hfe policy 



HOMICIDE. 193 

for the sum of $5,000, in the Knickerbocker Life Insurance 
Company of New York, dated January 26th, 1872. The 
insurance companies regarded the circumstances of the case 
with suspicion, and they at once made inquiry into the facts. 

At the commencement of the investigation, there was no in- 
cident or fact which of itself was conclusive of fraud ; but there 
were minor tokens which, grouped together or viewed in their 
relations to one another, led to conviction that the mystery 
surrounding the fire needed explanation. It seemed highly 
improbable that a strong, athletic man, such as Goss was 
known to be, should be overpowered in the manner described, 
and unable to make his escape from the burning building. The 
plausible stories of Udderzook, and of the brother, A. C. Goss, 
tended to convey the impression that they knew too much. At 
an inquest held by the coroner upon the next day following the 
fire, and again at an interview with the insurance agents soon 
afterwards, Udderzook testified that he was a brother-in-law of 
Goss, they having married sisters; that he resided at No. 
167 Conway Street, Baltimore, where he had lived during the 
last six years; that on Friday afternoon, the 2d day of Febru- 
ary, 1872, he met Goss, by appointment, between Biddle and 
Howard Streets, in the city of Baltimore, when they at once 
proceeded out on the York road to a cottage on the premises 
of a Mr. Lowndes, where Goss had been experimenting in the 
manufacture of some substance to be used as a substitute for 
india-rubber. They walked part of the way, and then rode in 
a Waverly horse-railway car to the terminus of the line. This 
brought them to within three-quarters of a mile from the cot- 
tage. On leaving the car they went into a store, where they 
procured a gallon of kerosene oil, carrying the oil in a wicker- 
covered demijohn, which they had left at the store some three 
days previously. Goss also purchased a bottle of whiskey. 
They then walked to the residence of one Engel, where they 
borrowed an axe, and thence they both proceeded directly 
to the cottage, where they built a fire in a stove which was in 
one of its rooms. This was about half-past three o'clock in 
the afternoon. From that time until dark, Goss visited the 
cellar of the cottage some three or four times. About dusk 
Goss filled a coal-oil lamp, in Udderzook's presence, using the 



194 HOMICIDE. 

oil from the demijohn brought there that afternoon. The lamp 
would hold about a quart of oil, and was filled full. At about 
six o'clock he, Udderzook, went to Engel's house and re- 
turned the axe which he had borrowed, and remained there at 
supper with the Engel family. After supper he and Gottlieb 
Engel went to the cottage, where Goss, Engel and himself 
all drank whiskey from the bottle which Goss had obtained 
that afternoon. About an hour aftenvards the light of the 
lamp went out. One of them then lighted a piece of candle 
and attempted to relight the lamp with the candle blaze, but 
was unsuccessful. Engel proposed to cut of? a portion of the 
wick, and Udderzook ofifered to get a new wick from the store. 
Goss suggested that a lamp be obtained from Engel's house, 
whereupon Udderzook and Engel left the cottage for that 
purpose. Arriving at Engel's house, they remained there from 
fifteen to t^venty minutes, when Udderzook, starting to return, 
discovered that the cottage was on fire. Together with Gott- 
lieb Engel and Louis Engel, he ran to the scene of the fire 
as fast as possible, and on arrival found the flames bursting 
from the windows and the roof. He made no attempt to 
enter the house, nor to his knowledge did any one else at- 
tempt an entrance, on account of the fierceness of the flames. 
After he had been at the fire about half an hour, he sent Louis 
Engel to Goss's residence, Xo. 314 Eutaw Street, to inform 
the family of the fire and of his fears that Goss was burned to 
death. About an hour after his arrival at the fire, he expressed 
his fears to ^Ir. Lowndes that Goss was in the burning building. 
The roof and a portion of the sides of the building had then 
fallen in. An effort was at once made by the spectators pres- 
ent, to ascertain if Goss had been burned with the building, 
which led to the discovery of a human body so burned as to be 
past recognition or identification. He, L^dderzook, had visited 
every room in the cottage during the afternoon of that day, and 
he knew there was no one in the house during that time except 
himself and Goss, and no one entered the house aftenvards, ex- 
cept Gottlieb Engel, up to the time when he and Engel went 
for a lamp. He also knew that there was no dead body in the 
house, and that no dead body had been brought to the house 
that day or evening, or at any other time. He had no know!- 



HOMICIDE. 195 

edge which led him to believe the body found in the ruins was 
the body of any other person than Winfield S. Goss. 

In giving his story of the occurrence, Udderzook manifested 
a willingness to mention every detail known to him, and was 
ready to account for and explain apparent inconsistencies. At 
no time did he betray an uneasiness under his close cross- 
questioning by the insurance men, before whom he voluntarily 
presented himself for the purpose. The main features of his 
account of the fire were corroborated by other and disinterested 
parties. The Engel family were visited and interrogated. They 
lived about three hundred yards distant from the cottage, and 
had known Goss and Udderzook during the preceding six 
months. They were evidently an honest, industrious German 
family, who would not knowingly be a party to any deception. 
It is certain that they were credulous, and did not doubt what 
seemed to them the evidence of their senses, that Goss was 
burned up at the cottage fire. 

Gottlieb Engel was a simple-minded, hard-working young 
man of twenty-three years. He saw Goss and Udderzook on 
the afternoon of February 2d, and loaned Udderzook the axe. 
He said that Goss asked him to come to the cottage in the 
evening, after supper, as Udderzook was going back to the city 
after a while, and Goss would like to have him there for com- 
pany. While eating his supper Udderzook came in and re- 
turned the borrowed axe. Mrs. Engel, Gottlieb's mother, in- 
quired where Goss was, and Udderzook replied that he was at 
the cottage. Udderzook further said to them that Goss wanted 
him to stay with the Engel family about an hour and a half, so 
Mrs. Engel invited him to a seat at their supper-table. After 
supper Udderzook and Gottlieb went to the cottage. On arriv- 
ing there they were admitted by Goss, who unlocked the door 
from the inside. They went into the southeast room of the cot- 
tage, where there was a fire in the stove. Gottlieb remembered 
seeing a coal-oil lamp burning in an adjoining room, where 
there was also a work-bench. Goss brought the lamp and put 
it on the floor of the room where they were. Gottlieb went into 
the room where the work-bench was, but into no other, except 
the room he first entered. While Gottlieb was there, Goss 
went several times into a third room, alone, closing the door 



196 HOMICIDE. 

after him each time. Every time he went to that room he took 
the lamp with him. The last time he came out he remarked, 
" I wish I had my fortune." Goss went to the cellar once 
while Gottlieb was at the cottage. The entrance to the cellar 
was on the outside of the house. At one time, while Goss 
was entering the room where Gottlieb and Udderzook were, 
the light of the lamp which he was carrying went out. Goss 
then called to Udderzook to bring a light, and Udderzook 
took him a lighted paper, but he did not light the lamp with 
it. Udderzook then lighted a piece of candle, and with it at- 
tempted to light the lamp, but the tallow ran upon the lamp- 
wick, which prevented its lighting. Gottlieb offered to remedy 
the trouble by changing the ends of the wick, but Goss ob- 
jected. Udderzook proposed to get a new wick from the store, 
but Goss said a lamp had better be obtained from Engel's house, 
when Gottlieb offered to go and get one. He at the same 
time invited Goss to go with him and get his supper. Goss re- 
fused to go, but insisted on Udderzook going with him. Gott- 
lieb and Udderzook then went back to the Engel house. 
After they had been in the house about ten minutes Mrs. 
Engel said to Udderzook, *' You had better go now," she think- 
ing Goss was left alone in the dark. But Udderzook delayed 
going, and after a while went into the kitchen for a drink of 
water. Gottlieb was close behind him, and noticed the reflec- 
tion of the light of the fire. They stepped out upon the porch, 
when Gottlieb said it was the cottage on fire. Udderzook 
replied, " Scott has illuminated." Gottlieb at once ran as fast 
as he could to the fire, and outran Udderzook, who caught up 
with him after he had slackened his pace. While at the fire 
Udderzook said to Gottlieb, " I think Scott is in the house," 
when Gottlieb replied that he had probably run out of the 
building. At the time, Gottlieb did not believe that Goss was 
in the building, and he returned home before the body was re- 
covered. Udderzook came to the Engel house that evening 
and told the family that Goss had been burned to death, and 
his body found. 

Upon interrogating A. Campbell Goss, the brother of W. S. 
Goss, as to his whereabouts during the night of the fire, he 
manifested extreme caution, and was guarded in his replies. 



HOMICIDE. 197 

He preferred to submit his written statement covering the time 
in question, and he did so as follows, the paper being sub- 
scribed and sworn to under date of February 26th, 1872: 

On Friday, at about noon, near one o'clock of the 2d of February, 
1872, my brother, W. S. Goss, and I were with each other, and we 
parted at about that time on the corner of Fayette and St. Paul 
streets. He told me he was going to his country place, where he 
was at work making samples and specimens of his substitute for 
india-rubber. I asked him to let me go out with him, but he 
requested me to remain in the city, and go to see Mr. Clark, a por- 
trait painter in Mulberry Street, and collect some money Clark owed 
him for frames. I promised, and did so. This is the last time I saw 
Scott. Before we parted he told me to remain at my boarding-house. 
No. 41 North Calvert Street, the next morning, and he would call 
for me, and we were going to see a Washville friend, James Thomp- 
son, at Locust Point. He left me to go home to his dinner. I went 
to mine at my boarding-house; then, in the afternoon, went to see 
Clark. Was at supper as usual. After tea, was in my room about 
an hour writing a letter home. Finished that; spent the evening with 
my landlady's family, as I often did. Retired to my room; went to 
bed, was there all night, and the next morning was waiting for my 
brother as promised, and while waiting received a letter from Mr. 
Way, a friend of Scott's, telling me a great misfortune had happened 
to my family. I immediately went to his house in Eutaw Street, and 
there learned of my brother's death. I went immediately to where 
this occurred, and found it was too true. About a week after this I 
went out with a friend to the wreck, and we looked awhile for his 
watch, keys, etc., but did not find them. A day or two afterwards 
I went and made a thorougher search, and found his watch, chain, 
and keys in the debris. A. C. Goss. 

This statement of A. C. Goss was subjected to a thorough 
test as to its truthfulness, and was found to be false in several 
material points. 

The lady who kept the boarding-house at No. 41 Calvert 
Street had a distinct recollection of the night of the fire, and 
of the fact that A. C. Goss was not at supper at her house 
that evening. After tea she saw him in her parlor. It was 
then past nine o'clock. The next morning after the fire, the 
burning of A. C. Goss's brother was the subject of conver- 
sation at her house, and the fact that Mr. Goss was " not home 
to supper" was noticed and spoken of at the time. 

The daughter of this landlady also had a precise recollection 
upon that point. She was at home, in the parlor, when 'Mr. 



198 HOMICIDE. 

Goss came in at about half-past nine o'clock that evening. 
He had made an engagement on that Friday morning to spend 
the evening with her. Instead of keeping it he left a note 
for her, saying that he was obliged to meet his brother, and 
would not be back until rather late, and was sorry to be 
obliged to break the engagement. That he was not at home 
to supper that evening was a fact observed, spoken of at the 
time, and explained by the young lady upon the information 
given her in the note written by Campbell Goss. 

The proprietor of a livery stable also had a clear remem- 
brance of the night of the fire. He was applied to that Friday, 
soon after dinner, by a man who wished to engage a horse and 
buggy to use that evening. The man said he would call for 
the horse about seven o'clock. He wanted to drive a short 
distance out into the country. The livery proprietor did not 
know the person at the time, but a few days afterwards, he saw 
and identified A. C. Goss as the same person. When A. C. 
Goss came to the stable, his name and residence were asked, 
and he gave his name as A. C. Arden, No. 314 North Eutaw 
Street, which name and address were noted down at the time. 
It afterwards appeared that Arden was the name of the father- 
in-law of W. S. Goss, and the street and number given was his 
residence at that time. He came for the horse about dusk, and 
did not return until a little past nine o'clock. On his return he 
gave a pair of buckskin gloves to a hostler at the stable. Of 
the identity of A. C. Goss with the party who hired the horse 
and buggy that evening, the livery proprietor had not a shadow 
of doubt. When he first thus identified A. C. Goss, he spoke 
of the gloves which his hostler had said were given to him, and 
which, on the contrary, it was supposed might have been left in 
the buggy by accident. But Goss denied all knowledge of the 
matter. 

At this stage of the investigation it became quite reasonable 
to infer that A. C. Goss drove out to some point near the cot- 
tage, where he met his brother, W. S. Goss, by appointment, 
and drove him to a railway passenger station. The time oc- 
cupied, considering the distances, and all the facts, fitted exactly 
his thus going from and returning to his boarding-house. The 
finding of certain personal effects in the debris, at the place 



HOMICIDE. 199 

where the body lay, was regarded with suspicion, when it was 
ascertained that the place previously had been searched, care- 
fully and thoroughly, for these very articles. Early upon the 
morning subsequent to the fire, and before the spot had been 
visited by any other person, a Mr. J. C. Smith searched for the 
watch and ring which he had seen Mr. Goss wear, but failed to 
find them. This Mr. Smith was a junk dealer, and had had 
much experience in searching for lost or hidden articles of 
value. He knew Goss personally, and he purposely went to 
search among the embers for the recovery of these or any other 
articles which Goss might have had upon his person. It began 
to be whispered about as very strange that no trace of such 
articles could be discovered, when Mr. A. C. Goss, more than 
a week afterwards, " made a thorougher search " and found the 
watch, chain, and keys. 

There were other noticeable points in the early investigations 
of this case, of which we need only mention two. First, it was 
ascertained that Goss had drawn from the bank a small balance 
due him on his deposit therein, and thus closed his account, 
the day before the fire. Secondly, it was noticed that letters 
testamentary had been taken by Mrs. Eliza W. Goss, on the 
6th day of March, 1872, indicating that W. S. Goss had executed 
a last will and testament prior to his cremation. The document 
was found on file in the office of the Register of Wills for Balti- 
more City. In it Goss apologetically says, " Being desirous to 
settle my worldly affairs, and thereby be the better prepared to 
leave this world, when it shall please God to call me hence," 
he therefore does make and publish his last will. He directs 
his body to be decently buried at the discretion of his executrix, 
and devises all his estate, " real, personal, and mixed," to his 
wife, whom he constitutes the sole executrix of his will. It 
could not be learned that the testator left any estate which 
might be denominated real or personal, nor anything whatso- 
ever save the " mixed " mystery of his " taking off." 

While all these disclosures tended to strengthen the suspi- 
cion of fraud, there was absolutely nothing in the way of 
direct demonstration. In the mean time the usual proof and 
claim papers had been submitted to the insurance companies 
concerned, and the claims were rapidly fnaturing. ]\Irs. Goss 



200 HOMICIDE. 

at once placed her policies in the hands of able attorneys, who 
wrote each company as follows: "Our instructions are to act 
promptly in the presentation of the claim, and on the institution 
of a suit, if the matter is to be taken into the courts. Mrs. 
Goss would decline any offer of less than the whole amount of 
the policy." The companies refused to pay at maturity, and 
suits were promptly instituted under each policy. 

Time wore on with the development of nothing more satis- 
factory for the defense than has been mentioned. It was there- 
fore desirable to learn what light, if any, could be thrown upon 
the matter by an exhumation and examination of the charred 
remains which had been buried as those of Goss. At the in- 
quest which had been held upon the body, it was observed 
that although the extremities were more or less consumed, the 
head was entire, and it was believed the bones of the skull, in- 
cluding the teeth, were uninjured. Any peculiarity of the teeth, 
whether natural or arising from mechanical dentistry, might at 
once determine the question of identity of these remains. An 
effort was made to obtain a description of any such peculiarity, 
if it existed, for the purpose indicated. In pursuance of this in- 
formation every dentist in Baltimore was interrogated, but with 
only negative results. So far as could be ascertained, Goss was 
known to have had unusually good teeth, which were conspicu- 
ous in his ordinary conversation, and were fully exposed when 
he laughed. From no source could it be learned that he had 
had occasion to employ a dentist. 

Mrs. Goss had testified before the coroner to certain facts 
touching the size and general figure of her husband's person, 
which facts had reference to identity with the burned body, and 
therefore, a verbal request was made of her, through her spirit- 
ual adviser, the Rev. Dr. Fuller, of Baltimore, that she would 
make a more elaborate description, especially of his teeth, and 
grant permission for the exhumation and examination. This 
request was made through Dr. Fuller because of his proffered 
assistance, as he expressed it, "to get at the truth of the mat- 
ter." The result of Dr. Fuller's efforts to arrive at the truth 
may be deduced from the following note, sent by him as the 
conclusion of his labors in that direction; 



HOMICIDE. 201 

Baltimore, Jan. 3, 1873. 
My Dear Sir : 

I have seen Mrs. Goss. She says that, knowing it was her hus- 
band, and grieving over her sorrow, she yet summoned resolution 
and believes she testified to all she knew, and that others did the same. 
She has been so shocked at the suspicions in the case, cast upon the 
memory of her husband, that she has resolved to commit the matter 
to the God of the widow and the afflicted, and to speak no more on 
a subject so abhorrent to all her feelings. 

Very respectfully, dear sir, 

R. Fuller. 

Mrs. Goss had determined that an exhumation should not be 
made, and evidently had silenced her ofHcious pastor's inquiry 
into the validity of her claim to the insurance. But this did not 
arrest or discourage an effort looking to the thorough examina- 
tion of the charred body over which Dr. Fuller had held solemn 
burial service. This purpose led to the following correspond- 
ence, which sufficiently explains itself. 

Baltimore, Jan. 22, 1873. 
To Milton Whitney and Henry V. D. Johns, Esquires, Counsel- 
lors, etc. 

Gentlemen — The undersigned, counsel respectively of the Mutual 
Life Insurance Company, the Knickerbocker Life Insurance Com- 
pany, and the Travelers Insurance Company, defendants in suits 
brought by you in behalf of Mrs. Eliza W. Goss, to recover upon 
policies issued by said companies upon the life of Winfield S. Goss, 
respectfully ask your attention to the following suggestions: 

As you are by this time probably aware, the defense relied upon in 
these suits is that proofs of loss required by the terms of the policies 
have not been furnished to the satisfaction of the several companies, 
and are not, in fact, such as we can advise our clients will warrant 
them in paying the large amounts involved. The extraordinary cir- 
cumstances under which it is claimed the insured met his death, you 
must in fairness admit, called for unusual care and particularity in 
proving the loss, and takes the case out of the ordinary class, as to 
which there can be no reasonable doubt of loss. The proofs fur- 
nished are on their face plainly insufficient; they are not such as are 
required by the policies and proper to be given, even in cases of 
death free from unusual circumstances; and these objections on the 
part of the companies that your proofs were insufficient, were brought 
to your notice prior to bringing suit. We wish most plainly to give 
you to understand that our companies resist this claim with no cap- 
tious spirit and with no speculative object, and that they only require 
such proofs as are reasonable and such as they think they have a 



202 HOMICIDE. 

right to expect the plaintiff to be able to produce. If she can give 
reasonably conclusive evidence that the body buried in February last 
as that of Winfield S. Goss the insured, was really his, we are author- 
ized to assure you that her claims will be admitted and paid at once. 
It is more agreeable for the companies to pay than to contest, and 
they are determined to afford you every opportunity to remove their 
doubts and to meet their requirements in the most ample rrfanner the 
case will admit. 

It is obvious that the most decisive and satisfactory proof on this 
point is to be derived from the body itself buried as that of Goss, 
provided it be in such a state as to admit of identification. And we 
can hardly suppose that it existed in such a condition as to authorize 
the finding of the coroner's jury and to warrant the drawing of the 
affidavits presented as proofs of death, and yet that it was so far dis- 
figured and consumed as to afford no points of recognition. If the 
body was that of Winfield S. Goss, there must have been, and must 
still be, some physical marks, characteristics, or peculiarities known 
to Mrs. Goss, or to other relatives or friends, by which it can be 
recognized. That every person has such marks, recognizable by 
some one, can hardly be doubted, and we believe such exist in this 
case, which may be found if carefully sought for, and which will go 
far, if not prove quite effectual, to decide this question. 

For the purpose of enabling you to meet these requirements of 
proof, we are authorized to make the following propositions: 

First. Mrs. Goss is to furnish us with an accurate written descrip- 
tion of Winfield S. Goss, to be made specific upon these points: 
height, average weight, shape, or figure; age in February last; size 
and shape of head and skull, as far as can be stated, to be verified by 
the production of a hat once worn by him, if it can be had; descrip- 
tion of his teeth, their quality and appearance; whether wholly or 
partially sound or defective, natural or artificial; whether he had any 
peculiar teeth, had lost any, and how many and what teeth; had any 
teeth broken, and how many and what teeth, and how broken; had 
any teeth filled or otherwise operated upon by a dentist, and how, 
where and when operated upon, and by what dentist; the color, 
quantity and quality of his hair, beard, or whiskers; in what style worn 
in February last; any peculiarity about his nails or joints; whether 
he had any and what fracture or other wound of a serious or per- 
manent nature; and covering such other points as would be presumed 
to lead to an identification of his person. 

Second. Such statement, as full as Mrs. Goss is enabled to make 
it, and signed by her, being first furnished us, we propose that she 
shall then permit the body in question to be exhumed and subjected 
to a careful, exhaustive scientific examination, by medical or other 
experts to be selected by counsel on each side. The examination is 
to be attended by counsel, and all expenses are to be borne by the 
insurance companies represented by us. 



HOMICIDE. 203 

Should such an examination be had, it is probable that one of 
three things would result: Either, y^rj/, the remains would appear to 
be those of Winfield S. Goss, the insured, in which event we should 
feel bound to advise our companies it was useless further to defend 
these suits; or, second, the remains would appear to be not those of 
Winfield S. Goss, the insured, in which event we might fairly expect 
you to advise your client her case was hopeless; or, third, the remains 
would be incapable of identification, and nothing would appear from 
them to the advantage or disadvantage of either party. 

We are, gentlemen, respectfully yours, etc., etc., 

Edward Otis Hinckley, 

Atty. for the Mutual Life Insurance Co. 
Marshall & Fisher, 

Attys. for Knickerbocker Life Ins. Co, 
A. Stirling, Jr., and George H. Chandler, 

Attorneys for Travelers Insurance Co. 

Baltimore, January 25, 1873. 

Gentlemen — In reply to your communication of the 22d inst., we 
furnish evidence of our acquiescence in your first proposition, by 
enclosing herewith a written description of the late Winfield S. Goss, 
sighed by Mrs. Eliza W. Goss, following the order of your sugges- 
tions, and as specific as it was in her power to make it. To your 
second proposition, Mrs. Goss also sorrowingly but promptly signi- 
fies her acquiescence, if the companies you represent desire such 
steps taken. At the exhumation and examination of the remains of 
her husband, she will be represented by two medical gentlemen, by 
her counsel, and by a few of those who superintended the interment, 
upon whom she can rely to identify the body as that she committed 
to the ground, preliminary to the scientific examination which you 
suggest should now be made. 

Please accept Mrs. Goss's thanks for the assurance you give her 
in your communication of the 22d, that the two propositions, and the 
suggestions therein contained, are made by your respective com- 
panies in " candor and good faith," and in no speculative or captious 
mtendment, and that she may at last realize the truth of those argu- 
ments in favor of the value and necessity of life insurance, and of 
the special advantages of your corporations, which their agents, dur- 
ing an interval of many years, so urgently presented to her husband. 

.... As far as the payment of the amounts due upon these poli- 
cies is concerned, it is a mere business matter, and should be dealt 
with as such; but, in view of the imputations cast upon the memory 
of the deceased, and upon the characters of the living, and the inva- 
sion of the most sensitive relations of domestic life and into the very 
privacies of the grave itself, which this defense involves, we are 
glad to know that now, in your hands, the matter will be more mer- 
cifully conducted than it has been heretofore. The necessity and pro- 



204 HOMICIDE. 

priety of such consideration was made apparent to-day to ourselves, 
as we were given an account of the severity of the ordeal through 
which this lady has passed. Its first scene was upon the occasion of 
the bringing back of the body of her husband to the privacy of his 
house. We are informed that after giving sufficient searching scrutiny 
for an instant, hoping it should not be him, the fact of his identity, 
in her mind, was evidenced by her throwing herself upon the poor 
charred form, and clinging to it, until removed by the strong arms 
of others, and that shortly after this pitiful reunion, the detectives 
sent by the defendants were at the house to see them. 

Thanking you for the relief given by your letter, and with the 
request that you will name an early day for the proposed examination, 
we are, with great respect. 

Very truly yours, 

Whitney & Johns, 
Attorneys for Eliza W. Goss. 

Baltimore, January 25, 1873. 

I make and sign the following statement, in response to the request 
contained in a letter dated January 22d, 1873, addressed by the coun- 
sel of three of the insurance companies against whom I have claims, 
to my counsel, Messrs. Whitney & Johns. 

Winfield S. Goss, my husband, was about five feet eight inches in 
height, and would have weighed, at the time of his death, I should 
think, one hundred and sixty-five pounds. He was of full figure, 
broad, deep chest, stood very erect, short, full neck. Was, to the best 
of my recollection, thirty-six years of age on the 4th of November, 
1871. He had a broad, intelligent forehead, resembling in general 
outline that of his brother, A. C. Goss. 

He wore about 7 or 7J4 size hat. His hat last purchased was 
destroyed at the time of his death — I believe, burned up. I have an 
old felt hat once used by him, and will produce this at the time of 
the proposed exhumation. I have a velvet vest once worn by him, 
though this was too small for him and had been laid aside some 
time previous to his death. This shall be also produced. I gave 
away in charity most of his clothes after his death, most of them to 
a poor man who was injured at a saw-mill. 

Owing to the circumstance of his having usually worn a moustache, 
long enough to partially conceal his teeth, I am not able to describe 
them very accurately. He wore no artificial teeth to my knowledge, 
never complained of pain or inconvenience from decayed teeth, and 
I do not remember his requiring the services of a dentist during the 
time we lived together. I should call his front teeth quite regular. 

His hair was dark brown. In earlier years it was curly. About 
the time of his death he wore it trimmed closer than formerly, and 
it was not so curly. He would brush his hair, and then pass his 



HOMICIDE. 205 

fingers through it, wearing it lightened up, and very much in the 
style in which his brother, A. C. Goss, now wears his hair. I pre- 
served for a time a small piece of hair cut from the back of his head 
at the time of his preparation for burial, supposed to have been taken 
from the place on which his head rested; but it must have been 
touched by the fire, and soon- fell to powder. Can remember no 
singularities of nails or joints. His nails were regular. His hands 
were well formed and small in proportion to his size. My impression 
is I have a glove once worn by him, and if so will produce it with 
his clothes above referred to. He had neither fracture nor wound, 
to my knowledge. I would state also, as it may throw additional 
light upon the description sought, that my husband and Mr. J. W. 
Langley, the gentleman connected with the Continental Life Insur- 
ance Company, were photographed together some months before his 
death, and that I will endeavor to produce also one of the pictures. 
The photographs were taken by Mr. Bachrach, an artist whose place 
of business is on the corner of Lexington and Eutaw streets. I have 
recently had a copy of my husband's likeness taken from the nega- 
tive in his possession, to send to the parent of my husband — to his 
mother. Eliza W. Goss. 

Upon receipt of the statement signed by Mrs. Goss, arrange- 
ments were at once made for the purpose indicated by the 
foregoing correspondence. Prof. F. T. Miles, M. D., and R. 
Wysong, M. D., were selected by the counsel of Mrs. Goss to 
be present and assist in the examination. Prof. E. Lloyd 
Howard, M. D., and Prof. F. I. S. Gorgas, M. D., were selected 
to represent the insurance companies. The last-named, being 
an eminent dentist, was especially qualified for this work. 

The necessary preparations being made, the exhumation was 
conducted in presence of counsel representing all parties in 
interest, the medical gentlemen already named, and the con- 
sulting surgeon of one of the insurance companies. A. C. Goss 
and William E. Udderzook also were present, and both were 
closely observant spectators of the proceedings. A superficial 
inspection of the remains was made at the grave-side, and the 
coffin with its contents was then taken away for a more critical 
examination. A. C. Goss objected to such removal, and en- 
deavored to have no examination made save such as could be 
made on the ground. On finding that the physicians could not 
and would not conduct their work in such a place, he and the 
legal adviser of Mrs. Goss gave their reluctant consent to a 
removal of the remains. The following is a copy of the report 
submitted by the examining surgeons: 



206 HOMICIDE. 

The undersigned, appointed to examine certain remains interred 
in Baltimore Cemetery, met by agreement in the Cemetery on the 
afternoon of Monday, February lo, 1873. 

The grave was in soft, clayey soil, about five feet deep. On being 
opened, the coffin was found enclosed in a wooden box, both the 
box and coffin in a good state of preservation, and both filled with 
water. On removing the lid of the coffin — which bore a plate marked 
" W. S. Goss, died Feb. 2, 1872, in the 37th year of his age " — the 
charred remains of a corpse were disclosed, wrapped in a white 
cloth. After a superficial inspection, the coffin was closed and placed 
in a wagon, to be removed to the city. 

On the following day, Feb. nth, the undersigned met at the Col- 
lege of Physicians and Surgeons, and proceeded to a careful exam- 
ination of the remains. The coffin was again opened and showed 
remains to be in the same condition as on previous day. A complete 
examination revealed the following facts. 

The soft tissues of the body were almost entirely destroyed, appar- 
ently by fire; those not so destroyed were converted into adipocere 
and afforded no indications for determining any points of interest or 
importance. There were found lying to the back of the head, por- 
tions of the scalp, entirely separated from the skull, covered with 
hair about one inch in length; the proper color of the hair could 
not be well determined, as it might have been stained by the fluid in 
which it lay; it presented a dark, almost black appearance. The 
skull was entire, except portions of the maxillary bones, to be after- 
wards more fully described. [The skeleton is here examined in 
detail, and a minute description given of each and every bone which 
escaped destruction by fire.] 

The skull was of full size, measuring twenty-two inches in circum- 
ference (around the forehead and occipital protuberance), round, and 
well formed. The chest was deep and capacious. The bones of the 
trunk and limbs were thick, with large articular extremities, and 
strongly marked at the points of muscular attachment. The bones 
presented no indications of disease, fracture, or other injury, other 
than those caused by burning, as specified above. 

The teeth were defective to the extent shown in the detailed state- 
ment which is appended to this report. From a careful and critical 
examination of the remains, the undersigned feel fully authorized in 
forming the following conclusions: 

1st. The remains were those of a male. 2d. He was not a negro. 
3d. He was between the ages of twenty-five and fifty years. 4th. He 
was of fair average height, of stout build, and of great muscular 
strength. 5th. It is impossible to determine whether the burning was 
the cause of death or was post-mortem. 

F. T. Miles, M. D., E. Lloyd Howard, M. D., 
R. Wysong, M. D., F. I. S. GORGAS, M. D. 

Baltimore, Feb. 13, 1873. 



HOMICIDE. 207 

Condition of Maxillary or Jaw Bones. — Superior Maxillary — 
Perfect, except margin of alveolar process. Inferior Maxillary — A 
portion of the external surface of body of the bone below the alveolar 
process and to the right of the median line, including the right mental 
foramen, destroyed for a space of two and a half inches long, and one 
inch broad or wide; the bone otherwise perfect. 

Number of teeth remaining in upper jaw, 2; number of teeth remain- 
ing in lower jaw (including one root of tooth), 7. 

Condition of the Two Teeth in Upper Jaw. — Superior Right 
Second Bicuspid — A superficial carious cavity on posterior proximal 
surface. Cusps on grinding surface worn away by mechanical abra- 
sion, but not so much as to wholly obliterate the natural depressions on 
this surface. Superior Right Third Molar — Perfectly sound. 

Condition of the Seven Teeth in Lower Jaw. — Root of Inferior 
Right Central Incisor — The crown evidently destroyed by caries to a 
point below free margin of the gum, before death. Inferior Right Lat- 
eral Incisor — Perfectly sound. Inferior Right Canine — Sound; angle 
worn away by mechanical abrasion. Inferior Left Central Incisor — 
Various cavities on both proximal surfaces, which communicated. 
Inferior Left Canine — Carious cavity on the anterior proximal surface. 
Inferior Left Second Bicuspid — Small carious cavity on the anterior 
proximal surface. Inferior Left Third Molar — Large carious cavity on 
the buccal surface, near neck; superficial cavity on grinding surface. 
Grinding surface worn by mechanical abrasion so as to almost obliterate 
the natural depressions on the surface. 

Form of Irregularity of Inferior Front Teeth, — Approximal surfaces 
of the inferior right lateral incisor and inferior left central incisor 
approach near together at the cutting edges; caused by the loss of the 
crown of the right central incisor, the root of this latter tooth remaining 
in the alveolar cavity. 

As a result of this examination, the insurance companies were 
advised that it would be impossible to reconcile the dissimili- 
tude between the diseased jaws and mouth of this almost tooth- 
less corpse, and the mouth of W. S. Goss, as described in the 
statement signed by his wife. That statement declares he had 
"never complained of pain or inconvenience from decayed teeth, 
and I do not remember his requiring the services of a dentist 
during the time we lived together. I should call his front teeth 
quite regidar." As Mrs. Goss had been married to W. S. 
Goss some fourteen years, during which time they had lived 
together, it was fair to presume she necessarily would have 
heard complaints of pain and inconvenience from such badly 
decayed teeth and jaws; that she would have remembered the 
required services of the dentist who had extracted so many of 
these teeth, and that she would not have called such front teeth 
" quite regular." 



208 HOMICIDE. 

II. 

The suits, which originally had been instituted in the Court 
of Common Pleas at Baltimore, were afterwards transferred, by 
the defendants, to the Circuit Court of the United States, 
where they were entered in September, 1872. The action 
against the IMutual Life Company preceded the other insur- 
ance suits, as entered upon the calendar, and was reached for 
trial on May 27, 1873. This being regarded as a test case, the 
defense was conducted by counsel of the several insurance 
companies interested — all of whom were members of the Balti- 
more bar. 

In his opening statement, Mr. Johns, counsel for the plain- 
tiff, said: 

This suit is between Mrs. Eliza W. Goss and the Mutual Life 
Insurance Company; but you will soon find, gentlemen of the jury, 
that though technically this case is between Eliza W. Goss and the 
Mutual Life Company, that it is in fact that single plaintiff contending 
with no less than a combination of four powerful insurance com- 
panies We will adduce evidence which will enable you to 

perceive, while these companies solicited Mr. Goss to insure for the 
benefit of his wife, they acted one by one, singly; but when his body 
was cold and it was necessary for his wife, his widow, to ask that 
those insurance companies should keep their promises — that while 
they acted singly as they solicited his confidence, when it was nec- 
essary to meet the widow, they present the solid combination of 
companies, with all the powerful agencies behind them, which their 
moneys, power and wealth, enable them to bring into this court. . . . 
Though the rule of defense in this case has not been communicated 
to us with that business-like frankness which should characterize 
especially such intercourse as that between a lady and companies who 
have sought the confidence of her husband in his lifetime, and though 
the object of the pleading is to give notice to the opposite party, 
they have communicated no specific and definite information; yet we 
do know that the agents of these insurance companies have laid 
their corporate cheeks together through this community to defame 
the memory of the dead and intimidate this widow, and it is right 
and proper — Mr. Hinckley. — I must interrupt the counsel in slan- 
dering the agents of the companies. Is that a proper opening state- 
ment, your Honor? The Court. — I do not think this is within the 
proper limits of the opening statement — counsel charging the parties 
on the other side with a combination to defame. Mr. Jolms. — I will 
rest there, if your Honor so rules. 

Now, gentlemen, with your permission, I will ask your attention, 



HOMICIDE. 209 

carefully, to the immediate facts which led this lady to make the 
claim against this company. We shall prove to you that in the sum- 
mer preceding his death, Winfield Scott Goss was boarding upon the 
York road, near Waverly, about a mile or two from the city of 
Baltimore, at the house of a Mr. Engel. That near there, there was 
a little tenement upon the estate of A. J. Lowndes, Esq. It was idle. 
Mr. Goss asked permission of him to rent and occupy that building, 
that he might there carry on his trade as a mechanic, and pursue 
the prosecution of certain inventions which were then occupying his 
attention. That he was undertaking to develop the manufacture of 
a substitute for india-rubber, which he had been promised large 
rewards for, if he should only be successful. I shall prove to you 
that the basement room, where he carried on his inventions, was 
damp and uncomfortable. That he asked his brother-in-law and a 
neighbor to accompany him there to help him remove some heavy 
articles from the basement to a more comfortable room upstairs. We 
shall prove to you that he was in perfect health that day — the 2d day 
of February, 1872. . . . We shall show to you that in the afternoon 
of that day, his brother-in-law, Mr. Udderzook, and a neighbor came 
up to be with him. That as it grew dark it became necessary to 
light a lamp; that W. S. Goss, the deceased, took up a large glass 
lamp, holding about a quart, which at that time was almost empty. 
That he attempted to light it. That Mr. Udderzook, his brother-in- 
law, and Mr. Engel, who were with him, remonstrated with him 
that he had better not fill that old lamp. That they suggested they 
would go down to Mr. Engel's and obtain a lamp. That these two 
persons left Mr. Goss in that building, going away for that pur- 
pose. . . . Our proof will then be that when these two gentlemen 
were absent for the purpose of borrovv^ing a lamp which they thought 
would be safe, they were alarmed by the cry that the house was on 
fire, and in a few moments, as they looked out, this building was in 
flames, and of course, they and all the rest of the neighbors collected 
at the spot. . . . That in a few moments afterwards, not finding Mr. 
Goss, Mr. Udderzook commenced to make inquiry for him, and that 
then one of the parties there present took a large board and threw 
it against the side of the building, so as to let the vision in from the 
flames, and there, upon the floor, they saw the burning and almost 
charred remains. That with an ice-hook they succeeded in bringing 
the remains out, and that it came out with the blood pouring from 
it, the limbs burned off, but the breast, which may have been con- 
cealed, as we shall show you, by timbers or something which 
had fallen upon it, almost preserved, and a little of the hair still 
remaining. We shall prove to you, gentlemen, that the body was 
then removed to a barn near by; that it was cold weather; that it was 
placed upon a sash in the barn and allowed to remain there during 
the night. We shall prove to you that when they came there in the 
morning, the blood, which had flowed freely from the freshly burnt 



210 HOMICIDE. 

body, had frozen in icicles around the sash. That after the inquest 
the undertaker removed the body to the residence of the widow, and 
we shall prove to you that instinct as well as intelligence came to the 
recognition of that body, and that a woman's eye and a widow's 
breast knew it was the one upon which her own had rested and 
pulsated, and that, after giving it look enough to know from the 
broad frame and the thick neck, and the form of the head, that it 
was the remains of him she had almost worshipped, she threw her- 
self upon that body and had to be taken from it by violence. We 
shall prove to you, gentlemen, that all the friends and relatives and 
neighbors were invited to that funeral; and that he was buried as 
every honest man who had met with such a painful and accidental 
death would desire to be buried — from the house of his own family. 
We shall prove to you — mark this little circumstance, gentlemen — 
that a day or two after the accident occurred, the brother of the 
deceased visited the premises, and felt around among the ashes for 
anything that might look like a bone. And anything that looked 
like a bone he gathered up, and he took and deposited them in one 
corner of the cofBn, that he might do the last act that a brother's 
love dictated him to do, burying all that remained of his brother, 
and not leaving it to be scattered by the winds of heaven. We shall 
prove to you, by way of closer investigation of that body, that the 
brother found there a bunch of keys which Winiield Scott Goss car- 
ried with him, and that they fitted drawers in his home. We shall 
prove to you that he found his. watch, a little tape-line, or the metallic 
case of it, which he had been in the habit of carrying with him. Then, 
gentlemen, we shall prove to you that we committed these remains 
to the ground, and we supposed that we were burying him, giving 
him forever to the earth, but that such in the issue was not the 
case. ... In last January, 1873, as we shall prove to you, we received 
a communication from the counsel of these companies, filled with 
platitudes about the desire of those companies to pay this lady when 
they were satisfied'; and demanding that they should be allowed to 
dig those remains from the ground and examine them! They accom- 
panied these with a prerequisite that we should furnish them, first a 
written statement descriptive of Mr. Goss, over the signature of the 
widow, and that then, in the presence of such medical gentlemen as 
they might select and as we might select, the remains should be 
disinterred and examined. Strange demand to make upon us! 
Strange and startling demand, as a matter of right. . . . That, gen- 
tlemen, we hesitated, as we shall prove to you, in yielding to this 
demand. We shall prove to you that we consented to that exhuma- 
tion, imposing simply one essential prerequisite from which we would 
not yield — that we would have some one present at the time who 
would identify the remains as those we had buried there, because we, 
as business men, knew the uncertainty that hangs over the remains 
when the family loses sight of them; and we knew what a hubbub 



HOMICIDE. 211 

would be created through this city if we should consent to that exam- 
ination, and go there and find nothing, or a substitute for what we 
had placed there. We shall prove to you that we went there and 
met the medical gentlemen they had selected, and took with us those 
we had designated. It was a year after it had been interred, but when 
the coffin was opened, and those whom we had taken with us, to 
identify it as the body which had been placed there, looked in the 
corner of the coflfin, there were the few bones we had placed there. 
We shall prove to you, gentlemen, that then, in consequence of the 
inclemency of the weather, these medical gentlemen requested they 
might be permitted to remove that body for a more careful examina- 
tion. We could hardly tell what more they could ask. It was 
removed. The only restriction we placed upon them was that they 
should do nothing to it, even in its then dilapidated and pitiful con- 
dition, that would further mutilate or disfigure it. 

We shall show you the report that was made by those medical 
gentlemen, which, though it could not identify the form in its then 
poor, emaciated condition, still reported what they did discover, and 
we shall show to you that there is not one single hair or tittle of 
difference that would commend itself to any intelligent and honest 
man, bent on an honest purpose, between the description that they 
give, and each and every description which had been given by 
Mrs. Goss herself. And, gentlemen, we yielded to that request, and 
I must say here, that often since, I have wondered if I did right in 
yielding to it. But it seemed to me that though Mr. Goss was dead, 
his good name and his memory were still living, and that while a 
sentiment alone might prevent us from yielding to such a demand, 
his good name and memory required that we should yield. We 
knew that that grave which they proposed to disturb, if we refused, 
would be pointed out as men point out a felon's grave. We desired 
it should be the grave of our friend, where those who knew him and 
respected him in life might visit it; where the sunshine should fall 
upon it, and where his friends would speak lightly and kindly as 
they passed; and we yielded to the demand. Then, gentlemen, we 
shall prove to you that they promised us, if that examination was 
satisfactory to them, that that policy should be paid. And we will 
prove to you that, to our infinite and absolute surprise — I may say 
to our intense disgust — a letter came, saying that they could not 
advise their clients, even then, to pay the policy! Therefore, gentle- 
men, the defense, as far as we know it, is that they deny the death 
of Winfield Scott Goss, which amounts to charging a base, savage, 
and merciless fraud upon this estimable family, which we are here to 
resist and to vindicate. Therefore, we shall supply this by another 
element of proof. We shall prove to you the high character of all 
these parties involved. We shall prove to you. all who knew 
Winfield Scott Goss, deceased, respected him; and though at times 
he might deal in conviviality to too great an extent with his compan- 



212 HOMICIDE. 

ions, that he was a man then in the relations of business and social 
life, that all who knew him respected and loved him. We shall prove 
tp you the high character of Mr. Udderzook, his brother-in-law, who 
was with him — prove it to you by those who were associated with 
him in the benevolent societies of the city, and who have known him 
as a man estimable and entitled to the confidence of all who are 
thrown with him. And we shall prove to you the high character of 
the brother, A. C. Goss. . . . We shall prove to you that when his 
lips had been hushed into silence by death, and he was not here to 
tell the circumstances and the motives which had induced him to 
take out this insurance, that then all these companies interlaced and 
intertwined, and here we are to meet them. . . . 

Alexander Campbell Goss, examined by plaintiff's counsel, 
testified as follows: 

In the month of February, 1872, I was boarding at No. 41 
North Calvert Street, in the city of Baltimore. I last saw my 
brother alive about noon on the 2d day of February, the same 
day of his death. We separated on the corner of St. Paul and 
Fayette Streets. He told me he was going home. At that 
time he was engaged on the York road, about two and a half 
miles from the city, near the town of Waverly. His business 
there was completing an invention of his own, a substitute for 
india-rubber; also gilding picture-frames. He had been there 
about four months. I have been out to these premises. It 
was a small tenement house with about seven rooms. The 
whole building was rented to him, but he did not use all the 
rooms. He was carrying on this investigation of his to perfect 
his invention, in the cellar of the house. He also used one 
room immediately over the cellar. — Question. What was that 
room used for? — Answer. That was where he had his little 
steam apparatus, on the top of the stove that conveyed heat 
down into the cellar. I never saw my brother alive again 
after parting with him on the corner of the streets. I saw his 
dead body the next day about twelve o'clock. It was at that 
time placed in an ordinary, medium sized shoe-box, in the 
barn of Mr. Lowndes. I noticed there was blood dripping to 
the floor, and a little blood on the floor. The blood was run- 
ning down from the box in which the body lay. The body 
was handed over to the coroner the same day. It was then 
taken to his home, No. 314 North Eutaw Street. It was sub- 



HOMICIDE. 213 

sequently placed in the public vault and afterwards buried in 
Baltimore Cemetery. While the body was in the vault I went 
out where the accident occurred and there commenced raking 
the debris, and found some little bones which I supposed to 
be his. I made a small bundle of them, and brought them to 
the city, and kept them until the next day, and while the body 
was in the vault, I removed the coffin lid and placed the 
small bundle of bones in the coffin. On the following Satur- 
day I again made an examination of the place where this fire 
occurred. I went there in company with a young friend. 
We did not search very diligently nor very long. We did 
not find anything. The next week I went out again and 
searched there for some time, probably an hour or more. I 
first found his watch and chain; then I found the little keys 
that belonged to a drawer in his house; then the metal case 
of a tape line. I brought these articles in and showed them to 
Detective Mitchell. He went with me to see Mr. Lowndes and 
we showed him the articles which I had found. [The various 
articles produced and identified by witness.] All of these be- 
longed to my brother. — Question. Could you describe the ap- 
pearance of your brother, so far as his physique was con- 
cerned? — Answer. Yes, sir; he was a very large man, weighing 
from about one hundred and seventy-five to one hundred and 
eighty pounds; very full in the chest, with a large neck and 
prominent forehead. — Cross-examination by Mr, Wallis. — Ques- 
tion. What induced you to go out and make the third search 
at the place where the fire occurred? — Answer. My anxiety to 
get these things. I went out alone. — Question. Was anybody 
there when you made the search? — Answer. Yes, sir; a colored 
woman at Mr. Lowndes's house came up while I was at work; 
she remained there about ten minutes; I had been there about 
ten minutes before she came. — Question. By what means do you 
identify this as your brother's watch? — Anszver. I have often 
seen his watch; this is the same size and same kind of watch 
as his; and the chain I bought and presented to him myself. — 
Question. What was the condition of the crystal of the watch 
when you found it? — Answer. Around the edges it looked like 
it had been a little melted; not a great deal, but was broken and 
mashed flat down on the face of the watch. It was not melted 



214 HOMICIDE. 

except around the edge of the circle. I could see through 
it and see the hands. Witness further testified: My brother 
was boarding at No. 314 North Eutaw Street, with David 
Arden. Mr. Arden is married to the mother of my brother's 
wife. When I parted with my brother on the corner of the 
streets as stated, he said to me he was going home to dinner, 
then he would go out to his place, where he would be at work 
until late. He did not think he would be back home before 
eight o'clock. I was a stranger in this city at that time; had 
been here about two months; was not engaged in any business 
at all; I came to Baltimore to see the city and to travel; I also 
expected to be in business soon with my brother, in connec- 
tion with his india-rubber invention. I remember exactly the 
time I went down to my boarding-house that evening. It 
was before supper; I was there at supper. After supper I 
went up into my room at my boarding-house, where I spent 
an hour and a half or two hours, and then came down and 
met Mrs. Parsons, my landlady, and spent the remainder of 
the evening in the parlor, and at the usual time retired to bed. 
I did not leave the boarding-house that evening. 

William Lowndes. — I am the son of Andrew J. Lowndes, and 
reside with my father on the York road; frequently saw Mr. 
Goss at the cottage. He told me that he carried on his india- 
rubber investigations in the cellar. He never let me in there. 
I went into the room above the cellar. I saw in there a little 
pipe connecting with a can which he had, and he put a little 
water in the can, and made fire in the stove, and said he pro- 
duced steam to cook his rubber with, which was in the cellar 
underneath. That is all he would tell me about his rubber. 

William E. Udderzook. — I reside at No. 167 Conway Street. 
By trade I am a smith and edge-tool maker; formerly a teacher 
of fine arts. Have resided in Baltimore, in the same house, 
eight years. I have known Winfield Scott Goss some five or 
six years. On the afternoon of the fire I met with him about 
two o'clock, and proceeded with him to the house occupied by 
him, situated near the York road, where we spent the after- 
noon and portion of the evening together. I have been there 
frequently before this time. He was engaged in perfecting the 
invention of a substitute for india-rubber. He had his vat in 



HOMICIDE. 215 

the cellar, and forced the hot air or steam from the stove in 
the room over the cellar, through a pipe running through the 
floor into a chest in the cellar. His work-room for gilding 
looking-glass frames was in the northeast room of the house. 
He and I were both in the cellar that afternoon. It was nearly 
half-past eight o'clock that evening when I left the house for 
the purpose of procuring a lamp from Mr. Engel's house, as 
the lamp we had would not burn. He left us at the door and 
closed and locked it after us. Before we left, he, Engel and 
myself had been trying to make the lamp burn. It was a very 
large glass lamp. — Question. Was there anything passed be- 
tween you and Mr. Goss when you left; anything said by you 
or him, as to what you were going for? — Answer. It was un- 
derstood we were going for a lamp. That was the arrange- 
ment. Witness further testified: I do not think we were 
absent from the house more than fifteen minutes. I had been 
to Mr. Engel's house before. I had stopped there that after- 
noon and borrowed an axe, and I returned the axe about sun- 
set same day. At that time I took supper with the family. 
They were just seated at the table, and we were very intimate. 
I was at Mr. Engel's house when I heard the alarm; heard 
the cry of fire from some one in the neighborhood, and I 
opened the door to go out of the house, and saw the light of 
the fire at the same time. 

The flames were illuminating the neighborhood then, which 
was within ten or fifteen minutes from the time I had left Mr. 
Goss. I waited a very few minutes for the lamp, and when it 
was ready I went out of the dining-room into the kitchen. 
When I opened the door I saw the reflection of the light from 
the burning house. I set the lamp back on the table and an- 
nounced to the family that the cottage was on fire, and ran across 
the field in company with Mr. Engel's son. At the time we 
arrived the fire had spread to such an extent that it was 
impossible to effect an entrance into the house or to get open 
the door. The glass was dropping from the heat, and the roof 
was in flames from one end to the other before I reached the 
house. I spoke to Mr. Engel, and told him that if Goss did 
not appear in a few moments I would take it for granted he 
was in the fire, although, I said, it would not be safe to say so 



216 HOMICIDE. 

at present. I waited a few moments, and then I requested Louis 
Engel to go and deliver the sad tidings to his wife and the 
family, which he did. After the house had burned down suffi- 
ciently, and the fire had subsided, they succeeded in finding the 
body. It was carried to a barn and placed in a box there. The 
next afternoon the coroner took charge of it, after which I went 
with the undertaker to the barn and brought away the body to 
his residence, No. 314 North Eutaw Street, from where it was 
afterwards buried. I recognized it as being his body, judging 
by the size and shape of the head, and the size of the neck and 
breast, which was not much disfigured. I claimed it to be his 
body. I had a perfect right to do so, I think. I noticed a 
considerable flow of blood coming from the body. — Cross- 
examination by Mr, Wallis. — Mr. Goss and I married sisters. 
I married into the family in the fall of 1865; had not known 
Mr. Goss prior to that time. I am employed by the firm of 
Duker & Bro. as an edge-tool maker and a smith. Previous 
to the war I was engaged in teaching penmanship, and fine 
painting in oil, in Pennsylvania. I had an interest with Mr. 
Goss in the manufacture of his substitute for india-rubber. 
That was the object of my going out to the cottage with him. 
He had not yet made an effort to procure a patent. He told 
me that if I would devote a portion of my time with him, and 
furnish some capital, I should have a share in the invention. 
I furnished him $200 up to that time. My wages are from $13 
to %22 a week. My time contributed was in keeping him com- 
pany. Mr. Goss had specimens of his substitute for rubber^ 
which he exhibited. They were cut in square chunks, as 
rubber usually is, and he was in the habit of carrying them 
about with him. On the afternoon of the fire, I went out 
there with him, as he told me he had some very nice samples, 
and he was going to work on some that afternoon. I knocked 
of¥ work that afternoon for the purpose of going out with him. 
We walked out to the intersection of Charles Street with the 
Waverly street cars, and rode out as far as Waverly. At 
Waverly, Mr. Goss bought a half-pint of whiskey and a gallon 
of coal oil, which we took to the cottage, and about a quart 
of the oil was put in the lamp. We stopped, on our way, at 
Mr. Engel's house, where I borrowed an axe. My purpose 



HOMICIDE. 217 

in getting the axe was to cut a little wood to make a fire to 
heat up the house and heat the stove, in order that we might 
spend the evening in a warm room. From Engel's house we 
went to the cottage, where I proceeded to make a fire. He 
filled the vessel on the stove with water, for the purpose of rais- 
ing a little hot air or steam in the vat which was in the cellar. 
Occasionally, he would go into the cellar to see how the pre- 
paration was working. I remained in the room on the floor 
above. I was in all the rooms that afternoon, but most of the 
time in the room where the stove was. It was a cold day, and 
there was some snow on the ground. About sunset, I went 
back to Mr. Engel's house for the purpose of returning the 
axe. I remained there about half an hour. Mr. Gottlieb 
Engel then went with me back to the cottage. Goss unlocked 
the door and let us into the house. Mr. Goss visited the cellar 
once or twice after that. Mr. Engel and I remained in the 
room where the stove was. The lamp did not burn well; ap- 
parently the wick was wet. Mr. Engel left the house with me 
for the purpose of going and getting a lamp. We left Mr. 
Goss in the dark, with only the light of the stove. I believe 
there was a little piece of candle there that he had been using. 
I heard the cry of fire before I left the Engel house. When 
I got to the cottage the flames had burst through the windows, 
and had thoroughly spread over the roof. All the rooms were 
apparently full of flame and smoke. I spoke to nobody but 
the Engels of my suspicions that my brother-in-law, Mr. Goss, 
might be in the flames. There was no one else there that I 
knew until Mr. Lowndes was pointed out to me. — Mr. Wallis. 
In the name of Heaven, if a man is burning up, do you have 
to be introduced before you will ask for assistance in pulling 
out the burning man? — Udder zook. I claim that I performed 
my duty by sending a message to the family. Witness con- 
tinued. I returned to the city (Baltimore) about eleven o'clock 
that night. I went first to No. 314 North Eutaw Street, where 
Mrs. Goss resided. After I left Mrs. Goss, I approached a 
police officer on the street and made known to him the nature 
of the accident that had occurred, and explained to him that 
I believed it was caused by the explosion of a coal-oil lamp. 
We wxnt into a tobacconist's, and I gave him the details. The 



218 HOMICIDE. 

clerk in the tobacconist's store wrote the statement down. I 
asked the officer if he thought we would have time to have it 
published that night. He said he thought we would if it 
reached the newspaper office before two o'clock. I was anxious 
to have this get into the newspapers the next morning. 

Andrew J. Lowndes. — The burned cottage was my property. 
It was a light frame building. Mr. Goss appHed to me in the 
summer or autumn of 1871 to rent the house, as it was then 
vacant. I reluctantly consented to let it to him. That was 
my first meeting with him. Mr. Goss was a large, full-chested 
man. I was at the fire. After the house was pretty much 
consumed, my attention was first called to the suspicion of 
there being anybody in the fire, by a man whom I did not 
know at the time, but at the inquest I learned it was Mr. 
Udderzook. I saw the charred rem.ains after they were taken 
from the fire. They were very much burned. The chest had 
been lacerated in being drawn out. The face was partly 
burned and a great deal defaced. The head seemed to be 
whole. It appeared to be the body of a large man. — Cross- 
examined by Mr. Wallis. Mr. Goss wanted to rent the house 
to perfect some discovery or invention of his own. I first de- 
clined to rent to him. He subsequently applied through an- 
other person, and I finally yielded to his request. He was to 
pay $10 a month rent. It was let monthly. I think he had 
it four or five months. At the time of the fire, when I first 
went to the burning building, there was no other one there 
except my son, who went with me. I heard no noise, no 
cries, no explosion. In ten or fifteen minutes a considerable 
number of persons had gathered there. After the house was 
mostly consumed, I was leaning against the fence, conversing 
with some neighbors, when Mr. Udderzook came up to me, 
somewhat solemnly, and said, " I think he is in the house." 
I turned to him and said, "Who is in the house?" He re- 
plied, " Mr. Goss." I said, " Can it be possible Mr. Goss is 
in the house?" I asked who he was, and he said he was the 
brother-in-law of Mr. Goss. I said to him, " Is it possible 
that you, knowing Mr. Goss was in there, have not given the 
alarm before?" His reply was that he had been looking for 
Mr. Goss; failing to find him, he felt sure he must be in the 



HOMICIDE. 219 

house and burned up. I said to him, " Sir, you might have 
alarmed the whole neighborhood; we would rather have had 
a false alarm, than for a human being to be burned up alive." 
At the time Mr. Udderzook gave this information there was 
nothing standing of the building but a few scantling. The 
roof had fallen in; the sides and chimney had fallen. 

Mrs. Eliza W. Goss. — Examination by her counsel, Mr. 
Whitney. I am the widow of Winfield Scott Goss. Had been 
married nine years. The first information I received of my 
husband's death was between nine and ten o'clock the night of 
the fire. This was from Louis Engel, who had come from the 
fire. Later that night, my brother-in-law, Mr. Udderzook, 
made me aware of the fact of my husband's death. His body 
was brought home the next evening. I recognized it as my 
husband's body, by the very full neck, full throat, and broad 
shoulders. I cut off a small quantity of hair to preserve, but 
a few days afterwards I found it reduced to powder. My hus- 
band was formerly in the looking-glass and gilding business. 
He was also getting up a patent for a revolving handle screw- 
driver. — Cross-examined. My husband was engaged in the 
manufacture of a substitute for india-rubber. He kept the 
secret of it entirely to himself. 

Rev. Richard Fuller. — Mr. Goss was a member of the church 
of which I was pastor in i860. He removed out West some 
time after that, and I have not seen him since. I officiated at 
his funeral. I am acquainted with his brother, A. C. Goss. 
He is a member of the church of which I am now pastor. — 
Cross-examination. A. C. Goss became a member of my church 
immediately after the funeral of his brother. 

Mrs. Sarah Arden. — I am the mother of Mrs. Goss. The 
last time I saw my son-in-law, Mr. Goss, alive, was between 
twelve and one o'clock, the day of the accident. He was then 
at home, at dinner. I never saw him again until his corpse 
was brought into the house. I saw the body, very much char- 
red; could not recognize any features. I saw sufficient to 
satisfy me who it was. I had no doubt about it at all. 

David Arden. — I am step-father of Mrs. Goss. She was liv- 
ing at my house. I first saw the corpse of Mr. Goss at the 
inquest. So far as the shape of the head and neck and chest 



220 HOMICIDE. 

are concerned, it corresponded with him. — Cross-examined. It 
looked like a piece of coke; it was all charred; you could recog- 
nize no features. There was nothing peculiar about the chest 
otherwise than that it was a full neck and full-chested man. 
Gottlieb Engel. — I reside out on the York road. I went with 
Mr. Udderzook to the cottage the evening of the fire. I was in 
the south room only. While we were there Mr. Goss called to 
Udderzook to bring him a light. They tried to light the coal- 
oil lamp, but it would not burn. I said to them I could fix it 
by turning the wick, but Mr. Goss said it was dangerous. Mr. 
Udderzook and I went to my house for another lamp. My 
mother got a lamp, and we were ready to go back when we 
discovered the cottage was on fire. I went to the fire, but re- 
turned home before the body was found. Mr. Udderzook 
came to our house after the fire was over and said they had 
found the body. When he came into the house he burst into 
tears, covered his face with a handkerchief, and trembled so he 
could scarcely speak. — Cross-examined. I had known Mr. 
Goss about six months. Mr. Goss and Mr. Udderzook were 
at our place at about three o'clock that afternoon. Mr. Goss 
invited me to come to the cottage and see him that evening. 
After that he and Udderzook went to the cottage. About 
supper-time I saw Udderzook again. He came to return an 
axe, and took supper with us. After supper he and I went to 
the cottage. Mr. Goss unlocked the door and let us in. There 
was a coal-oil lamp burning in the room we went into. Mr. 
Goss brought the lamp out of a room where it was and put 
it in the southeast room. I was in only two rooms that night, 
the southeast and southwest rooms. Mr. Goss went into the 
northeast room a couple of times while I was at the cottage, 
and closed the door behind him each time he went into that 
room. He took the lamp with him each time. When he came 
out of that room at one time, he said something about a fortune 
— something about wishing he had his fortune. While Goss 
was taking the lamp from one room into the other, the light 
went out. Goss then called to Udderzook to bring him a light. 
Udderzook first took a lighted paper, but it went out. Then 
he lighted a stick, and with it lighted a piece of tallow candle 
three or four inches long. Goss tried to light the lamp with 



HOMICIDE. 221 

the candle, but from some cause it would not light. I was 
standing a few feet off, and said to them it could be fixed by 
turning the wick. Goss said, " No, coal oil is very dangerous." 
I offered to get a lamp, and asked Goss to go over with me and 
get his supper. Goss refused, and said Udderzook should go 
with me as company. I said I could go by myself, but I had 
nothing against Mr. Udderzook's going with me. When we 
went out, Goss locked the door after us. He had no light 
when we left, but there was a tallow candle there on the work- 
bench. We walked over leisurely and remained, waiting for 
the lamp to be got ready, ten minutes or longer. I heard no 
alarm of fire, but when I went out on the porch I saw the 
reflection of the flames, and then walked to the end of the 
porch and saw the cottage was on fire. We all stood and 
looked for awhile, and then ran. My brother Louis started 
first. I reached the fence before Udderzook did, and waited 
there until he had time to catch up with me; then we went 
together to the fire. We walked the rest of the way. Udder- 
zook and I remained together until the house was burned 
down. Before I left to go home he asked me to point out Mr. 
Lowndes to him, which I did. 

At this stage of the trial, a little evidence was introduced in 
support of the general reputation for truth and veracity of A. 
C. Goss and of Udderzook. Plaintiff's counsel then read to 
the jury the correspondence between the insurance companies 
and Mrs. Goss, through their respective counsel, relative to an 
exhumation and examination of the charred remains which 
had been buried as those of Goss. 

Plaintiff here rested. 

Mr. Hinckley presented the opening statement of defendants 
to the jury. 

A. H. Barnitz. — I am a clerk in the ofifice of the Assistant 
Treasurer in Baltimore. I am familiar with the personal ap- 
pearance of Winfield Scott Goss. Have a vivid recollection 
of him at this time. In ordinary conversation he disclosed his 
teeth, which were very good and regular. After his alleged 
death I went to see what I supposed would be his remains. I 
called at his residence in Eutaw Street, and was shown the 
corpse as it lay in the coffin. I could see no point of resem- 



222 HOMICIDE. 

blance between Mr. Goss and the corpse. I saw the head and 
neck. It was perfectly charred and burned, so I could not 
recognize it as Goss or as anybody else. — Cross-examination. 
I speak of his teeth being good and regular, from what casual 
observation I made. 

Charles Hahn. — I am a book-keeper in the National Me- 
chanics' Bank. Winfield S. Goss made his first deposit in this 
bank June 17th, 1871, and his last deposit was on the follow- 
ing January 17th, 1872. He left his book at the bank to be 
balanced, and it was balanced and returned to him with his 
checks on the 31st of January, 1872. The balance due him 
was $365.75. He presented a check for the exact amount of 
the balance, on the first day of February, which was cashed. 

John W. Langley. — I am Baltimore agent for the Continental 
Life Insurance Company of New York. I knew Mr. Goss be- 
fore he came to Baltimore; knew him in Nashville, Tennessee. 
Goss met me one day on Baltimore Street, and insisted upon 
going to see some portraits. I went with him into a pho- 
tographer's, where I reluctantly consented to a sitting for a 
picture. I sat in a chair, while Goss stood behind me, and in 
that way our pictures were taken. I am quite familiar with 
his personal appearance; I remember him as a heavy-built, 
muscular man; dark curly hair, and wore a mustache and 
beard. I frequently noticed his teeth. They were unusually 
fine, regular, and white. It was a feature which exhibited it- 
self in his ordinary conversation. He had a large, open 
mouth, and when talking would disclose his teeth distinctly. 
Mr. Goss came into my office with a sample of what he termed 
a substitute for india-rubber. It was a square piece of ordinary 
india-rubber. He showed it to me and offered me a partner- 
ship interest in the business of its manufacture, if I would put 
in a certain amount of money. He asserted the sample to 
be his manufacture, and said that he had shown it to New 
York rubber men, and they could not distinguish between it 
and genuine rubber. I found that 1 could not see any dififer- 
ence. He said to me that one of the constituent elements of 
its manufacture was sea-water. 

A. R. Carter. — I have been agent for the Continental Life 
Insurance Company. Mr. Goss came into our office one day 



HOMICIDE. 223 

in the month of December, 1871, and exhibited a sample of 
what he said was a substitute for india-rubber, which he said 
he was manufacturing. He handed it to me. It was about 
three inches long and an inch and a half thick. I said to him 
it looked and felt and smelled like india-rubber. He said 
there was not a particle of india-rubber in it, but was made 
from materials which he got out of Chesapeake Bay. I satis- 
fied myself, by pressing it with my hands and by its odor, that 
it was a piece of genuine india-rubber, and told him so. He 
would not allow me to cut it. 

Mary A. Parsons. — I reside at No. 41 North Calvert Street, 
and was keeping the boarding-house in which Mr. A. C. Goss 
lived at the time of the fire. I distinctly recollect that evening. 
Mr. A. C. Goss was not at supper in my house that evening. 
After tea I was in my parlor as usual, and stayed there until 
after nine, when I went to my dining-room. Mr. Goss was 
not in the parlor then. When I returned to the parlor, Mr. 
Goss was in there. Mine is a small table, it only seats twelve. 
I always preside at the table. The next morning we had a 
conversation about this catastrophe, and in talking it over we 
noticed the fact that Mr. Goss was not at supper that evening, 
and wondered where he was. My mind is clear on that fact. — - 
Cross-examined. I saw Mr. Goss between half-past nine and 
ten o'clock that evening. I looked at the clock as I passed out 
and into the parlor. I should not have thought of these facts 
but that the next morning, my attention having been called to 
them, we commented upon Mr. Goss not having been to sup- 
per the night before, and wondered where he was. 

Miss Mamie Parsons. — I am step-daughter of preceding wit- 
ness; was living with her the night she has spoken of. The 
first time I saw Mr. Goss that evening was at about half-past 
nine o'clock. I was sitting in the parlor when he entered. 
The morning of that day he had made an engagement to spend 
the evening with me; afterwards he left a written message for 
me, saying that he had to meet his brother, in consequence of 
which he would be unable to return until rather late in the 
evening, and was sorry he had to break his engagement. He 
was at dinner with us that day. I was at supper with my 
mother that evening; Mr. Goss was not present. When he 



224 HOMICIDE. 

came into the parlor at half-past nine that evening, I said to 
him, "You are back sooner than you expected?" He an- 
swered, *' Yes." I am fixed in my recollection that this was on 
the night of the fire, and of the supposed death of Mr. Goss's 
brother. — Cross-examination. The note was written me the 
same day he made the engagement. I did not receive it until 
about six o'clock, after I had gone into the parlor. It was 
lying on the mantel, and some one in the parlor called my 
attention to it. Mr. Goss left my mother's house the next 
evening, and ceased boarding there. 

Mrs. E. M. Dudley. — I reside at No. 41 North Calvert Street, 
at the house of Mrs. Parsons; have resided there four years. I 
am principal in one of the primary schools in the city of Balti- 
more. My recollection goes back to the time when this affair 
took place, which is said to have resulted in the death of Mr. 
W. S. Goss. Owing to circumstances, I remember it — the 
circumstances impressing it more deeply on my mind. The 
next day after the fire being Saturday, and I being away from 
school, I was in the parlor about half-past nine o'clock in the 
morning. I am not there on other days. A note was brought 
in for Mr. Goss, saying that his brother had been burned in 
the fire the night before. Some one of us remarked at the 
time that Mr. Goss was not at home to tea the night before. 
I was myself at supper there the evening before. I can say 
positively that Mr. Goss was not there. His place at the table 
was opposite to mine, so that I could not help seeing whether 
he was there or not. 

Dr. John Thorn. — I am a veterinary surgeon, and have a 
livery stable. I was applied to immediately after dinner, on the 
day of the fire, by a man whom I did not know at the time, 
who wanted to hire a horse and buggy for that evening, to go 
to Greenmount Cemetery. I asked him his name. He said 
his name was A. C. Arden, and that he lived at 314 North 
Eutaw Street. — Question. Have you seen that person since? — 
Answer. He is before me now. [The witness identifies A. C. 
Goss as the man.] He came about dusk and got the horse and 
buggy, and remained out with it until twenty or thirty minutes 
after nine o'clock. I have no doubt whatever about the 
identity of the man. — Cross-examined. When he came back 



HOMICIDE. 225 

he gave my man a pair of buckskin gloves. I saw Mr. Goss 
after that, and said to him that my man had a pair of buckskin 
gloves, and I desired to know if he came by them regularly — 
if they had been given him, as he claimed they were. I had 
but that one horse out that night, and I waited for it to return 
before I went to bed. I looked at the clock when he came 
back to the stable. 

James Gilroy. — At the time of which Dr. Thorn has just been 
speaking, I was in his employ as groom. I recollect the hire 
of the buggy. I noticed the man at the time. [Witness identi- 
fied A. C. Goss as the man who " looked like him, but could 
not say positively."] He drove out with the horse about seven 
o'clock and returned about nine o'clock. He went down in 
the yard a piece and then came back and said to me, " Here 
is a pair of gloves, you may have them." 

James S. McFarland. — I am an officer of the Baltimore police. 
Between eleven and twelve o'clock on the night of the fire, 
myself and Officer Hughes were standing at the corner of 
Madison and Eutaw streets, when a man approached us, ask- 
ing if we wanted a report for the newspapers. He then related 
to us the incident of the fire, saying that his brother-in-law, 
W. S. Goss, had been experimenting in some patent gum in- 
vention, when, through the explosion of an oil lamp, or some 
chemicals he was using, the fire and death resulted. We went 
into a tobacconist's, where the store clerk wrote down the 
statement as related by Mr. Udderzook. The night reporters 
are in the habit of visiting the police stations for news items, 
and this statement was given to one of them. — Officer Chas. E. 
Hughes corroborated the statement of Officer McFarland. — 
Jacob Wright, the tobacconist's clerk, testified to writing down 
the statement for publication as Udderzook had related it to 
him 

John C. Smith. — I reside near where the fire occurred. When 
I reached the fire, the house had fallen in. I had been there 
about ten minutes when Martin Quinn directed my attention 
to something in the embers which looked liked a skull. It 
was near the chimney, on the north side of the building. A 
long pole or ice-hook was obtained, and I assisted in dragging 
the body from the fire. I placed the body in a box and it was 



226 HOMICIDE. 

taken to Mr. Lowndes' stable. The next morning, the first 
thing after I got up, I walked over to the place of this occur- 
rence. During the night it had been snowing and I could see 
that nobody had been there that morning before me. I went 
there to find Mr. Goss's watch and jewelry, which I knew he 
carried on his person. I searched very closely right where 
the body had been pulled out the night before. I could tell 
by the remains of the chimney, exactly where this place was. 

I found some bones, which I cared for. I used a piece of 
iron in raking and searching, and examined the spot very care- 
fully. I searched particularly the spot where the breast of the 
body had lain. There had been a four or five inch fall of snow 
during the night, but the surface of the ground was bare where 
the fire had been. I placed the bones with the body in the 
box which was then in the stable. I found a melted glass 
bottle among the embers. This I brought away with me. 

Martin Quinn. — I was present at the time of the fire; the 
flames were breaking out from the roof and the windows when 
I reached the spot. The building was all down when w^e began 
looking for the body. Mr. Lowndes came up to me with 
others, and said to me, " This man," meaning Mr. Udderzook, 
" says that Mr. Goss must be in the fire." I turned to Mr. 
Udderzook and said, "Do you say he is in the fire?" He 
said, " I am afraid he is." I said, " Why didn't you mention 
it before now, and we would have tried to save him?" He 
said he did not want to make any alarm, as he was a stranger 
about there. Then we began to look around and saw some- 
thing dark near the chimney. I pointed to it and said, " If he 
is in the house, there he is." Mr. Johnson replied, " No, Mar- 
tin, that must be his india-rubber." The color of the object 
was dark. No one there ventured to go in after it but Mr. 
Smith and me. After the body was taken out we threw a 
bucket or two of water on it to cool it of¥. If I had had any 
suspicion or information, when I got to the fire, that there 
was the possibility of there being a man in the house, I could 
and would have broken in the doors or windows, and gone 
into the house. I could have got in on the east side. 

Dr, James Hardy. — I am a practising physician, and as such 
have attended W. S. Goss on several occasions, in the fall of 



HOMICIDE. 227 

1870 and spring of 1871. Memorandum entry in my book 
reads " May 15th, 1871. Mr. Goss visited; effects of a week's 
drinking whiskey." The next day I again visited him and 
found him suffering symptoms of approaching delirium tremens. 
On all the occasions I have had to prescribe for him he was 
suffering from the effects of prolonged intemperance — the re- 
sult of five or six days' intemperate drinking. 

Dr. Theophihis Steele. — I am a physician in general practice 
in New York city, where I reside. On the 20th day of January, 
1872, I professionally attended a gentleman who gave his name 
as W. S. Goss, of Baltimore. I was summoned in my capacity 
of police surgeon, and found him in the Fifteenth Precinct 
Station-house. He was suffering from delirium tremens. I 
found him in the garb of a gentleman, claiming to be from 
Baltimore, and I prevailed upon the sergeant to allow me to 
take him to his hotel, he objecting to go to the hospital, where 
I had wished to send him. I took him to the Brandreth 
House, where I attended him that day and night. It was a 
slight attack of delirium, brought on by several days' debauch. 
I continued to attend him until the 23d of January, when he 
was much better. I called on the 24th, expecting to find him 
at the hotel, and learned that he had gone, leaving some memo- 
randum with the clerk, telling me he would call at my office. 
He did not call, to my knowledge. He did not pay me for 
my services. My junior partner had some correspondence 
with him, and I received from him two letters. [Witness pro- 
duces the letters.] Counsel for the defense here read to the 
jury the two letters, as follows: 

Doctor — I am happy to say that I am much improved, but not 
entirely well. . . . Please send me your bill, and I will either see 
you in the morning at 10 o'clock, or will send. . . . Please make 
your bill as reasonable as you can, as I have no more money than 
I want. Yours most respectfully, 

W. S. Goss. 

Doctor — I was much disappointed in not getting some money to 
settle my bill, but please don't feel uneasy, for I will most assuredly 
send it to you. I have received a dispatch which calls me to Phila- 
delphia, but hope I will not be detained long, for I am not yet 
through with my business here, and will soon return. Hoping that I 
have not incurred your displeasure, and that I will meet you again, 
I remain, Yours most respectfully. 

W. S. Goss. 



228 HOMICIDE. 

While I was in attendance upon him I requested Col. George 
Lemmon, formerly of Baltimore, to see this patient with me. 
Mr. Goss stated to me, in answer to my inquiries, that he had 
had two similar attacks previously. 

Col. George Lemmon. — I am a native and for many years a 
resident of Baltimore. I have resided in New York during the 
last six or seven years. Dr. Steele, the preceding witness, is my 
physician and personal friend. The doctor told me he had 
found a Baltimorean at the station-house, and had taken him 
to the Brandreth Hotel, that he seemed to be a very decent 
man, and suggested that I should go with him and see him. 
At his invitation I went. I saw the gentleman he had taken 
there. He was very shaky when I saw him. He told me that 
he was in business on North Gay Street, Baltimore, in the 
picture-frame and looking-glass business. 

Mrs. Catherine Smith. — I knew Mr. Goss, the party supposed 
to have lost his life at the fire. Have noticed him in conversa- 
tion and observed the character of his front teeth. He had 
such beautiful white teeth, and they were so prettily shaped 
that I spoke of it. I have often observed his teeth, especially 
when he laughed, and in ordinary conversation. They were 
plain, even, white, and very nice shape. 

Charles W. Hamill. — I was acquainted with W. S. Goss pre- 
vious to the war, and have met him frequently since. In my 
intercourse with him I have observed his front teeth and noticed 
they were regular and good. I took particular notice of them. 

Hermann Blum. — I am a gilder by trade. W. S. Goss was 
in my employ from April, 1870, to June, 1871. He had no 
interest in the business. His wages were $15 per week. At 
this time he had a fine set of teeth. He used to drink intem- 
perately during this time. He became an habitual drunkard 
before he left my employ. 

E. Lloyd Howard. — I am a member of the medical profession 
of the city of Baltimore; a Professor of Anatomy in the Balti- 
more College, also Professor of Anatomy in the College of 
Physicians and Surgeons, in Baltimore. I was present at the 
exhumation of the body which had been buried in Baltimore 
Cemetery as that of W. S. Goss. The remains were taken to a 
private room in the College of Physicians and Surgeons, where 



HOMICIDE. 229 

a scientific examination was made. Doctors Miles, Gorgas, 
and Wysong participated with myself in making this exami- 
nation. All of us united in a report or expression of opinion 
as regards the medical facts we ascertained by our examina- 
tions. There was no difference in opinion among us as to 
the medical facts stated in our report. Of the sixteen teeth 
belonging to the upper jaw, nine teeth had been lost before 
death; by that I mean some time before death. There re- 
mained in the jaw two teeth; there had fallen out, since death, 
three teeth; and two sockets, which had once contained teeth, 
were shallow, so that it was uncertain whether these teeth had 
been lost before or after death. Nine of the sixteen teeth 
were certainly lost long before death, and two others possibly 
were. One of the teeth lost from the upper jaw was a front 
tooth. Of the teeth belonging to the lower jaw, seven were 
lost long before death. One tooth had been partially de- 
stroyed by disease, one root of a tooth and eight teeth remained 
in the jaw. Of the seven teeth lost six were back teeth, and 
one was a front tooth, and the one of which the root only 
remained was a front tooth. This would have given the ap- 
pearance of two front teeth lost from the lower jaw. Of the 
thirty-two teeth, sixteen were unquestionably lost before death, 
and of the sixteen remaining, one was only a root in the 
socket. The crowns of two of the front teeth approached one 
another, over where a tooth had been lost. In the upper jaw, 
the palatine canal, which perforates the roof of the mouth 
just behind the two middle front teeth, was greatly enlarged 
by an abscess which had existed previous to death, and which 
abscess communicated with the diseased cavity of one of the 
front teeth. The abscess appeared to have formed about the 
root of the tooth. In our opinion, this abscess, communicat- 
ing with the cavity in the bone, had absorbed or eaten through 
the bone to that extent, forming an opening between the 
socket of the tooth and this anterior palatine canal. It must 
have been considerably diseased to have left such lesions in 
the bone. It could not have been otherwise than very painful. 
We judged, from the facts pointed out, that the other teeth 
over the diseased root must have approached each other, giv- 
ing a crooked, irregular appearance. [Plaster model of mouth 



230 HOJVIICIDE. 

handed to witness.] I have examined this model before and 
found it corresponded very accurately with the jaws we ex- 
amined. — Question. In pointing out to the jur}^ the place 
w^here this tooth, which has been destroyed by caries, and of 
which only the root was left, will you state the character of 
the teeth on the opposite sides, if they had been penetrated by 
caries, and how^ far? — Anszi'cr. The tooth upon the one side, 
the left tooth, was very much injured by caries, which ex- 
tended entirely through the tooth, so that we could pass a probe 
from one side to the other, directly through the body of the 
tooth. 

Dr. F. T. Miles. — I am a Professor of Anatomy in the Uni- 
versity of Maryland. I was present at the exhumxation and 
examination of the remains of the subject of controversy here. 
I was present at the request of the counsel for the plaintiff. 
The report read to the jur}- was signed by me. I concurred 
thoroughly in the facts therein set forth, and in the description 
of the teeth. Have heard fully the statement made by Dr. 
Howard in regard to the teeth and condition of the jaws, and 
according to my recollection and examination it is correct. I 
have nothing to add thereto or subtract therefrom in the way 
of qualification. — Question. Something has been said about 
the fact that, on the morning after the fire took place, when 
the remains that were found in the fire were in the barn — 
some water having been thrown upon them at the fire the 
night before — there was found some blood and water, which 
on that cold night had frozen around the box, or which, per- 
haps, was dripping from it. Permit me to ask you what that 
would indicate, or whether it would indicate anything in regard 
to the recent death of the body? — Answer. It would indicate 
nothing in regard to such a body as that the remains of which 
I examined. It is possible that the body long after death, 
may allow the blood and sanies to come out sufficient to stain 
■water thrown upon it. Taking a body surrounded with the 
circumstances which have been related here, water thrown upon 
such a body, in the condition it was, the appearance of a 
bloody fluid would indicate nothing as to the length of time 
that body had been dead before the occurrence. 

Dr. Howard recalled. — The bloodv water noticed about the 



HOMICIDE. 231 

box by witnesses, in my opinion, would give no positive indica- 
tion in regard to the time of the death of that body. I do not 
think I ever had a subject in the dissecting-room that did not 
bleed readily. The blood which flows from such bodies is 
altered blood, but gives the usual red appearance. — Question. 
State whether or not there is any difficulty in obtaining dead 
bodies for the purpose of anatomical examinations? — Answer. 
No, sir. There is an almost unlimited supply. You can get 
them for $15 to $20 apiece, any quantity of them. 

Witness further testified: I took some hair from the back of 
the head of the remains which I examined. [Witness produces 
the same.] — Question. State whether it has crumbled into dust 
or powder while in your possession? — Answer. No, sir; it is 
in a state of perfect preservation. I have another small por- 
tion of hair which I took from the back of the head, and which 
I have washed and examined under a microscope. I found it 
was of a dark color generally. Some of the hairs were of a 
very light shade, although most of them were quite dark. You 
will observe in this specimen (producing the hair) some of 
them are much lighter than others. 

Dr. R. Wysong. — I participated in the exhumation and ex- 
amination of the remains which have been spoken of by Drs. 
Howard and Miles. I did so at the request of Messrs. Whit- 
ney and Johns, the counsel for the plaintiff. I joined in the 
report which was made, and concurred with the others in the 
conclusion arrived at in the report. I have heard the state- 
ment made by Prof. Howard and Prof. Miles upon the witness- 
stand, and I concur with them, in all particulars, in what they 
have said as to the facts. 

Dr. Gorgas, one of the physicians who united in the report 
of exhumation and examination of the remains, being absent 
from the city, was unable to testify. He was a dentist of skill 
and experience, and had prepared plaster casts of the mouth, 
which casts or models were used by witnesses in their testi- 
mony relative to the teeth. The evidence of Dr. Gorgas not 
being attainable, Dr. Robert Arthur was called by the defend- 
ants, and testified as follows: I have practised the profession of 
dentistry thirty-two years. [Plaster models of the mouth of 
subject examined, produced and handed to witness.] The 



232 HOMICIDE. 

operations of nature, after the loss of teeth during hfe, are 
such as to leave it a matter of no possible scientific doubt 
whether teeth have been lost before or after death, provided 
they have been lost a certain time before death. It is a matter 
of physical demonstration. Looking at this model of the 
lower jaw, speaking as a scientific expert, I would say these 
teeth were lost, with the exception of the ones from these two 
cavities [referring to the two which the other physicians spoke 
of as where the teeth had fallen out since death], certainly more 
than two years before the death of the subject. In this model 
of the upper jaw, three of the teeth, I should say, were recently 
lost. The tooth next to the front tooth had been lost, unques- 
tionably, from one to two years. The absorption seems to 
have been complete, but the eye tooth and next to it seems 
not to have been lost so long; the absorption has not been 
completed. I should infer, from the small cavities, that the 
front tooth had been lost some time before death. Obviously 
there was a great deal of disease here; there must have been 
much physical pain. This place where the penetration appears 
to have taken place in the roof of the mouth, shows a perfora- 
tion through the bone communicating with the socket of the 
teeth. The teeth must have been very much diseased to have 
got into this condition. Not within my experience have so 
many teeth been lost without the patient suffering great pain, 
and of necessity requiring the services of a dentist. In mas- 
ticating ordinary food, this person must have found great 
difficulty. He must have eaten with great discomfort. I 
would not, by any means, call this person's front teeth quite 
regular. Teeth that are absent could scarcely be called regular. 
Even the teeth of the lower jaw must have presented a very 
irregular appearance. 

Dr. Chas. H. Ohr. — I am a practising physician; have been 
in practice about forty years; am at present the President of 
the Medical and Chirurgical Faculty of the State of Maryland. 
I reside in Cumberland. I have been present during the medical 
examinations here, and have heard the testimony of Doctors 
Howard, Miles, and Arthur. [Plaster casts of the mouth of 
the exhumed subject handed to witness.] — Question. Sup- 
posing these to be accurate models of the mouth of the subject 



HOMICIDE. 233 

which was exhumed and examined by those medical gentle- 
men, and with the professional descriptions that you have 
heard, please tell the jury whether or not that was a regular set 
of teeth at the time of the death of the party. — Answer. No, 
sir. It was a very irregular set. — Question. State whether or 
not that was the mouth of a man, in your judgment, who had 
never suffered any pain from his teeth, and never had occasion 
for a dentist. — Answer. In my judgment, he required the 
services of a dentist on more occasions than one, and had 
suffered a great deal of pain on account of diseased teeth. 
Witness further testified: There is very little surface here for 
the process of mastication or chewing of food. The grinding 
teeth are not opposite each other in such a way as to enable 
this person to masticate ordinary, usual food. The abscess at 
the roof of the mouth would have produced intense pain. 
Looking at the whole of that mouth, it was physically impos- 
sible for the person who had it to chew his ordinary food with- 
out pain, and even with trouble and pain the process must 
have been very imperfect. — Question. What is the effect of 
fire upon human hair? — Answer. Brought in contact with 
fire, the hair will burn, and will then crumble upon the slightest 
touch or friction, so far as the fire has been applied. When 
the hair has been heated but not burned, it preserves its integ- 
rity. — Question. Have you ever heard of a case, in your ex- 
perience, when hair burned would not crumble at the time 
when it was handled for the purpose of being put away, but 
which fell to dust afterwards? — Answer. No, sir. In my 
judgment that is not physically probable. Hair is not a good 
conductor of heat. It does not burn well. It will ignite, but 
as soon as it is beyond the reach of the substance which ignites 
it, it will cease to burn. 

The defendants close. 

John W. Butler, a witness for the plaintiff, in rebuttal, swoni 
and examined. 

I have known W. S. Goss since 1854. He was of an inven- 
tive turn of mind. He invented what he called a ratchet scmv- 
driver, some years ago. He called at my office some few 
months before his death and brought what seemed to be a piece 
of india-rubber. Says he, '' John, I think I have got it at last." 



234 HOMICIDE. 

I asked him what it was. He said that he had discovered a 
substance to take the place of india-rubber and not cost more 
than half as much. I asked him why he did not patent it. He 
said he did not care about putting the receipt for making it 
on file; that he found it the hardest work of his life to keep 
the secret, even from his wife. 

A. C. Goss, recalled in rebuttal. — I heard the testimony of 
Dr. Thorn in reference to a buggy. His testimony is not true, 
so far as I am concerned. I have never been in a buggy since 
I have been in Baltimore. I met Dr. Thorn once before I saw 
him on this stand. At the time I was accosted by the gentle- 
man whom I have now learned to be Dr. Thorn, I was start- 
ing to leave Mr. Langley's office, and passed near Dr. Thorn, 
who was sitting there with his feet on the stove. He got up, 
extended his hand, and offered to shake hands with me. He 
said, " My hostler has a very fine pair of buck gauntlets, which, 
he says, you gave to him. Will you tell me if you gave him 
the gloves?" I told him I did not Then he said, "At the 
time you got the buggy." I told him he was mistaken in the 
man. He says, ''What is your name?" I said "Goss is my 
name ; the brother of the unfortunate man who was burned up." 
He said, " That is not the name the party gave me. He gave 
me his name as Philip Raugh." He repeated the name to me 
three distinct times. I sat there a few moments and then ggt 
up and went home and spoke to my family about this matter. 
I remarked to Mrs. Arden : " I shall make a little note of that, 
for it may come up at some time," and I did so in this little 
book. [Producing the book.] I made this little memorandum 
at the time, in the presence of Mrs. Arden. It reads, " I met 
Dr. John Thorn at Langley's office to-day; he accused me of 
getting the horse and buggy of him to go on the York road. 
He said the name I gave him was Philip Raugh and not Goss." 
— Question. You stated that you took supper at the house of 
Mrs. Parsons, that night? — Answer. Yes, sir. I am almost 
positive I did. — Question. Have you any doubt about it? — 
Answer. None in the world. — Cross-examination. I have no 
memorandum by which I can tell the precise date when this 
entry was made in that book. I think it was two or three 
weeks after the fire, when I had the interview with Dr. Thorn. 



HOMICIDE. 235 

I had never seen Dr. Thorn before, to my knowledge, and 
was not then introduced to him. When I got'home I made 
the memorandum, the same day. — Question. If you had never 
seen this man before, and had never heard of him before, tell 
the jury how you became familiar with the fact that he was 
Dr. John Thorn? — Answer. I think from what he told me. — 
Question. He gave you his Christian name as well as his other 
name? — Answer. I think he told me that, or I would not have 
made a memorandum. — Question. I see that you use language 
which strikes me as somewhat singular, " He accused me of 
getting the horse and buggy." What do you mean— what par- 
ticular horse and buggy do you refer to by using that lan- 
guage? — Answer. To the horse and buggy he asked me if I 
did not get from him. — Question. It seems to me that a man 
making a memorandum of that sort, who had never known 
anything about it before, would have said, " Asked me about a 
horse and buggy?" — Answer. I felt sure, when I got home, 
there was a plot and conspiracy against me. 

Mrs. Arden, recalled in rebuttal. — I recollect A. C. Goss 
coming to my house and making the memorandum he has tes- 
tified to. It was done at my suggestion. He stated to me 
what had occurred. 

The plaintiff here closed. 

Dr. John Thorn, recalled in rebuttal by the defense. — The 
statement of the name of Philip Raugh, as made by A. C. 
Goss, is not true. I never before heard of that name. 

The defense here closed. 

Defendants' counsel submitted prayers covering two points: 
1st, the question of the identity of the body, of whose burning 
evidence has been given, with that of Winfield S. Goss the in- 
sured; and 2d, the question of fraud, as presented by the false 
statements made by Goss in his applications for insurance. 

The opening argument for the plaintiff^ was made by H. V. 
D. Johns, Esq. E. Otis Hinckley, Esq., followed in an argu- 
ment for the defendants. These gentlemen spoke with marked 
ability and earnestness. The last day of the trial was devoted 
to the closing arguments of the distinguished counsel, upon 
whom this duty devolved. S. T. Wallis, Esq., made the con- 
cluding argument in behalf of the insurance companies, and for 



236 HOMICIDE. 

nearly three hours his rare eloquence held the eager attention 
of the jury and of the great crowd of spectators who had assem- 
bled in the court-room. Milton Whitney, Esq., closed for the 
plaintiff, and was listened to with evident pleasure by the audi- 
ence, and with telling effect upon the jury. 

The case finally was given to the jury, with leave granted to 
return a sealed verdict, and the court then adjourned to the 
next day. After a deliberation of about five hours, the jury 
came to an agreement. They were nearly unanimous from 
the first in favor of the plaintiff. The sealed verdict was duly 
read in court, it being in favor of the plaintiff for the full 
amount of the insurance, with interest added. Defendants' 
counsel gave notice of motion for a new trial, pending which, 
the court adjourned. 

III. 

With unmistakable evidences of delight, the conspirators saw 
that they had almost attained success. But the motion for a 
new trial, and especially the postponement of the hearing upon 
that motion until the November term of court, vv'as some- 
what of a drawback to their happiness. They knew that the 
fugitive Goss, addicted as he was to intemperate habits, was 
liable to betray his hiding-place. Before Udderzook left the 
court-room, he spoke to a representative of one of the compa- 
nies upon the result of the trial, and in reply to a remark of 
his was told that heretofore but little effort had been made to 
ascertain the whereabouts of the missing Goss. Doubtless he 
drew the inference that a determined search, instituted by the 
insurance companies, would expose the whole fraud and con- 
vict himself and his accompHces of perjury. Well might they 
become alarmed with such a contingency staring them in their 
faces ! Their efforts to thwart this, and at the same time secure 
the plunder awarded them by a prejudiced and hostile jury, 
resulted in the tragic events which followed. 

The verdict against the insurance companies was rendered 
on the 6th day of June, 1873. On the 30th day of the same 
month, at about nine o'clock in the evening, William E. Udder- 
zook arrived at the hotel of the little village of Jennerville, in 
Chester County, Pennsylvania. Udderzook was well known in 



HOMICIDE. 237 

that place. He had spent his boyhood there, and his parents 
still resided in the neighborhood. At the time of his arrival 
at this hotel, he was accompanied by a man whom Udderzook 
spoke of as his friend, but did not mention any name. He 
asked for supper. Owing to the lateness of the hour, only a 
cold lunch could be furnished them, of which they partook, 
and afterwards they decided to remain all night. They were 
shown to a room, where they were quartered for the night, 
both occupying one bed. The stranger is described as a stout, 
full-chested, rather heavy-set man, with dark hair, dark mus- 
tache and side whiskers. He appeared to be about forty years 
of age. The next morning Udderzook spoke of his friend as 
being an invalid, and unable to come to the breakfast-table. 
A breakfast was accordingly prepared, which Udderzook took 
to his friend, in his room. The stranger kept himself con- 
cealed from general observation during the day. Udderzook 
was absent from the hotel during the forenoon, having gone 
away for the purpose, as he stated, of visiting his mother and 
a married sister who resided near by. In the evening he came 
back with a horse and top buggy, which he had hired from a 
neighboring livery stable, settled his hotel bill for himself and 
his friend, and then taking his companion into the buggy, 
drove away. Near midnight he returned the horse and buggy 
to the livery stable. He was then alone. An examination of 
the buggy next morning showed that the dash-board and bow- 
irons were broken. An oil-cloth which had been fastened to 
the floor of the buggy was missing, as also were two blankets 
which had been furnished with the buggy. The bottom of the 
wagon was stained with something which had the appearance 
of blood. A large gold seal ring, set with blood-stone, and a 
bone shirt-stud, were found between the cushions of the buggy. 
A week afterwards — on Friday, the eleventh of July — a 
farmer, who resided in the neighborhood, was passing along 
the roadway through what is known as Baer's Woods, when 
his attention was attracted by a number of buzzards in the road, 
on the fence, and in the woods. He thought it an unusual 
occurrence, but kept on his way. Returning over the same 
road soon afterwards, and seeing the buzzards still there, he 
determined to ascertain the cause of it. An examination of 



238 HOMICIDE. 

the spot led to the discovery of the body of a man, scarcely 
covered with earth, leaves, and a few branches of trees. 

Information of this discovery brought others to the spot, 
and the mutilated remains were found to resemble the stranger 
who, a few days before, had driven away in the buggy with 
Udderzook. The deputy coroner, with the assistance of his 
neighbors, made a careful inquiry into the mysterious circum- 
stances. A jury of inquest was impanelled without delay, and 
upon the evidence before it they found ..." That the same 
man (name unknown) came to his death between the hours 
of seven o'clock P. M., July i, 1873, and eight o'clock A. M., 
July 2, 1873, fi*oi^ wounds inflicted by a dirk-knife or other 
sharp instrument, in the hands of William E. Udderzook, of 
Baltimore, Md. ..." 

The facts of Udderzook having been principal witness and 
manager of the occurrences connected with the fire on the 
York Road, coupled with the other significant fact that the 
remains of the missing stranger bore a striking resemblance 
to the description of Goss, were sufficient to arrest the atten- 
tion of the insurance companies interested. An immediate 
visit to the scene of the murder followed, and a careful investi- 
gation of the facts was at once commenced. To the adjuster 
of the Travelers Insurance Company was assigned the general 
supervision of the matter, in the interest of the companies, and 
by the i8th of July these investigations had been followed up 
with such vigor as to enable him to send the following tele- 
gram: ''Under the direction of the District Attorney, we have 
exhumed and thoroughly examined the body of the man 
recently found murdered near Jennerville. All the measure- 
ments of the body, muscular development, figure, and general 
appearance, accurately correspond with the well-known descrip- 
tion of Winfield Scott Goss. The teeth are remarkably good, 
regular, even, and well preserved. The remains were fully 
identified by Baltimore citizens who knew Goss intimately 
during his lifetime. A seal ring, found in the wagon used by 
Udderzook on the night of the murder, was to-day identified 
by Louis Engel, of Baltimore, who is a friend of the Goss 
family, and who was a witness for Mrs. Goss in the recent in- 
surance suit. He unquaHfiedly declares it to be the ring worn 



HOMICIDE. 239 

by Goss; says he has seen and examined it many times, has 
frequently taken it from Goss and placed it upon his own 
finger. He described the ring perfectly before it was shown to 
him. The evidence is now complete, except an analysis of the 
blood-stains on the wagon, and similar examination of the 
charred remains of the clothing burned by Udderzook. The 
materials for this purpose, under seal, are placed in the hands 
of Professor E. Lloyd Howard, of Baltimore, for examination 
and report to the State authorities." 

Udderzook was arrested on the 15th of July, at the instance 
of the Sheriff of Chester County, Pa., and being taken to 
West Chester, was securely lodged in jail. His arrest upon 
so grave a charge was well calculated to create the utmost 
consternation among his numerous friends and acquaintances, 
and especially among those of the Goss relationship. The 
daily papers were filled with rumors of alleged discoveries 
which seemingly strengthened the evidence against him. Start- 
ling disclosures followed in rapid succession, until all doubt 
was early removed from the minds of those who were best 
conversant with the facts. 

Udderzook's friends were equal to the emergency. His 
lieutenant, who in court had unblushingly denied '' getting the 
horse and buggy," was unceasingly active in his behalf. They 
had no personal interviews. Alexander Campbell Goss did not 
risk a visit to Udderzook, while a prisoner in jail, but he plotted 
to extricate his confederate with characteristic cunning. The 
same able counsel who had conducted the insurance suit for 
the "widow" were soon actively at work for the brother-in- 
law. Strong local counsel was employed at West Chester, and 
the Hon. Wayne McVeagh, of Harrisburg, was also retained 
to defend the criminal. 

It would be interesting to review the steps which gradually 
revealed the great mass of evidence which so completely over- 
whelmed Udderzook upon his trial. This would occupy too 
much space, however, and as nearly all the facts material to 
the unfolding of this story appear in the evidence of witnesses 
produced in court, we may avoid repetition by entering at once 
upon the record of the trial of William E. Udderzook. 



240 HOMICIDE. 



IV. 



On the 2 1st of October following the finding of the mur- 
dered man's remains, the case came to trial at West Chester, 
Pa., Chief Judge William Butler, and Associates Hawley 
and Passmore, on the Bench. For the prosecution appeared 
Hon. A. Wanger, of West Chester, Commonwealth's Attorney, 
and William M. Hayes, Esq., of West Chester; and for the 
prisoner, Wayne McVeagh, of Harrisburg, Miltoni Whitney, of 
Baltimore, and Joseph Perdue, E^q., of West Chester. 

The clerk read the first count of the indictment to the jury. 
The District Attorney, Mr. Wanger, then made his opening 
statement, wherein a brief resume of the case was laid before 
the jury. We make the following extracts therefrom: 

" On Friday, the nth day of July last, the naked trunk of a 
male human body was found in Baer's Woods, between Pen- 
ningtonville and Cochransville, a lonely and desolate spot, 
buried in a shallow grave. The limbs, brutally severed from 
the body, were found buried some twenty-two yards distant. 
The man had side whiskers, was of a dark complexion, with 
dark eyes, hair dark and wavy, slightly mixed with gray. A 
shirt was found in the same grave in which the body was in- 
terred. From the feet were taken a pair of shoes. Several 
cuts, apparently stabs, upon the right breast, a cut across the 
throat, and two other slight cuts, revealed the crime of a horri- 
ble murder. 

"... Winfield S. Goss, in 1872, was a resident of Balti- 
more. On Friday, the 2d day of Februar}^ in that year, he 
disappeared. It was alleged that he was dead. We have 
been enabled to trace his wanderings, in some measure, until 
we come to his foul murder in your midst. In the month of 
June following his disappearance from Baltimore, he arrived 
at the Central Hotel in Philadelphia, where he registered the 
name of A. C. Wilson. The handwriting upon the register 
will be submitted to you in proof of this fact. A few days 
afterwards he appeared at Cooperstown, in Delaware County, 
in this State, where he gave the same name. He boarded there 
for some months, and also near by at Athensville, and fre- 
quented Bryn Mawr, not far distant. A description of his per- 
son and clothing, his statements and handwriting, will be sub- 



HOMICIDE. 241 

mitted to you in proof of these facts. A finger-ring which he 
wore, that is positively recognized, will be shown you. This 
ring he pawned at one time for a loan of a few dollars. He 
left Athensville for Newark, New Jersey, where he boarded 
until Wednesday, June 25, 1873. On that day he left for 
Philadelphia, procuring his passage ticket through the agency 
of Mr. Williams, a fellow-boarder. In Philadelphia he regis- 
tered at the William Penn Hotel, in proof of which fact we 
shall submit to you his handwriting upon the hotel register. 
. . . Winfield S. Goss had effected an insurance upon his 
life to the amount of $25,000, and there were certain actions 
in the conduct of the prisoner which will be submitted in proof 
of an interest or reason for concealing the whereabouts of Goss, 
and even for his murder. 

" A day or two after W. S. Goss arrived at the William Penn 
Hotel, as we shall prove to you^ the prisoner came to Philadel- 
phia, inquired for Goss, alias Wilson, and the two went away 
together. On Monday morning, the 30th of June, the prisoner 
and a stranger arrived at West Grove Station, on the Baltimore 
Central Railroad, in this county. They left their baggage and 
passed on foot for Jennerville, where they arrived at nine 
o'clock in the evening. They there remained all night, and in 
the morning the prisoner hired a horse and rode to his brother- 
in-law's residence, situated ten miles north. He met his sister 
at the house, and with her went to a neighbor's field, where her 
husband was at work. There he revealed to his brother-in- 
law that he had a friend at Jennerville who had money, and 
he endeavored to persuade Rhoades, his brother-in-law, to 
assist in putting the friend out of the way; stating that he had 
had this person in Newark, Philadelphia, and elsewhere, and 
that it would be worth a cool thousand dollars to each of them. 
We shall show you that he had previously written to Rhoades, 
saying that he had a job for him. . . . The prisoner then left 
his horse and went to Penningtonville on foot, w^here he hired 
a horse and top buggy. Returning, he stopped at Rhoades' 
place for the horse which he had left, and borrowed a strap 
with which to lead him. He arrived back again at Jennerville 
in the evening, returned the horse he had hired there that 
morning, and between six and seven o'clock in the evening 



242 HOMICIDE. 

he and the stranger — his friend as he called him — left in the 
buggy. They were seen at a number of places on the road, 
and will be traced to near the spot where the remains were 
found. ... At 11.40 o'clock that night he returned the buggy, 
broken and bloody. On the evening of this day, as we shall 
show you, there were heard cries upon the road, or within the 
woods where the crime was committed. This, as you will re- 
member, was on the ist day of July last. We shall show you 
that on the morning of the 26. a smoke was seen arising from 
the woods. Farther in the woods some of the clothing of the 
murdered man was burned. Buttons found there were pe- 
culiar, and were like those worn by A. C. Wilson, alias W. S. 
Goss, when he left Newark. The prisoner was seen to pass 
the hotel in Cochransville, on the morning of the 2d, and at 
this hotel he received a cup of coflfee and a light breakfast. 
Thence he went on foot to Jennerville, arriving there at nine 
or ten o'clock, with his clothes disheveled. On his way he 
made statements about the man he had taken away with him, 
which statements we will show were false. On the evening of 
the same day he called at the railway passenger station at West 
Grove, where he had previously left his baggage, as we have 
stated, and obtaining it, he took it to his mother's house, where 
he left it. The next morning he left for Baltimore. . . . The 
person who had let to the prisoner the horse and top buggy, 
sent him a bill for the breaking of the wagon and loss of 
blankets, amounting to $12.75, which bill he paid. This bill 
was found upon the prisoner's person at the time of his 
arrest. ..." 

Gamer P. Moore. — Sworn and examined. On Friday, the 
eleventh day of July last, I was passing along the Newport 
turnpike. Coming along in sight of Baer's Woods, I noticed 
quite a number of buzzards in the road and on the fence each 
side of the road. As I came up near where they were, I noticed 
a good many in the bushes in the woods. I went on upon 
my business, and returning, when I came in sight of the woods, 
the buzzards were still there. I went into the woods to see 
what attracted such a great number, and discovered some- 
thing that was mysteriously hidden. It was partly covered 
over with earth, some dead leaves, and there were several limbs 



HOMICIDE. 243 

of trees laid lengthwise over it. I looked around that portion 
of the object which was exposed, to see if I could find any 
hair whereby I might determine what kind of an animal it 
was. I found nothing but a little tuft of dark hair, mixed 
with a few gray hairs. I did not make any further discovery, 
for I had nothing to work with. I then went to Mr. Hur- 
ford's, where I had an errand, and from Mr. Hurford's went 
across the lot to the house of Mr. Rhoades. Mr. Rhoades 
was not at home. I described to his wife what I had dis- 
covered in the woods, and she said she would tell her husband 
when he came home, and have him come up and see me at 
my home. Rhoades came about three or four hours after- 
wards. I took my shovel and we went into the woods to the 
place where I had seen the object or body buried. Rhoades 
sunk the shovel into the soil on the left side of the body, and 
dug up a shirt. He struck the shovel in again, and raised 
up the head and face of a man. Just then I heard a wagon 
passing along the road. I went out to the road and saw a 
gentleman driving by. He was a stranger to me. I told him 
what we had found, and asked him to come into the woods 
and be a witness. He did not want to be detained, but, as he 
was going towards Penningtonville, he took us into his wagon, 
that we might notify the coroner. The coroner, and some 
eight or ten gentlemen, went back with me to the woods, to 
where the body lay. A jury was at once empaneled. The 
body lay in the same position as when we had left it. Some 
person had reached there ahead of us, and had uncovered the 
body. I observed a good-sized whisker on the side of the face, 
also a very good crop of hair. His beard on chin and lower 
part of face showed that it had not been shaved for several 
days. His hair was quite dark, with a sprinkling of gray. 
Whiskers about the same color. The jury being empaneled, 
the body was placed in their care. It was the trunk only, the 
arms and legs having been taken ofif. It was naked. The 
limbs were found about fifteen paces distant from where the 
body lay. They were buried only a few inches below the sur- 
face. On the feet were a pair of white cotton hose and a pair 
of congress gaiters. The limbs were taken out and placed 
alongside the body. The remains were then removed by the 



244 HOMICIDE. 

coroner to Penningtonville. I subsequently examined and 
made measurements of the grave where the body was buried. 
The deepest part of it was eleven inches below the surface. At 
that depth was a large root running across the bottom of the 
grave. There were other roots running across near the ends of 
the grave. At the time when Rhoades and I raised the head out 
from the ground, the face had a natural look. By that I mean 
I could have recognized it easily if I had known the person in 
life. I have no doubt of this. 

Counsel for Commonwealth here proposed to show a photo- 
graph picture to the witness and ask him whether he recognizes 
either of the persons photographed thereon, to be followed by 
evidence as to whose photograph it is. Objected to by the de- 
fense. — The Court. The offer, of course, must be considered 
in connection with the opening that the Commonwealth made, 
and with the offer of other evidence showing whose photograph 
it is. We can see without difficulty that it can do no harm if it 
is not followed by such proof. If it is followed by such proof, 
the consequences are precisely the same as if the proofs were 
heard in advance. I do not myself see that it can make any 
difference to the prisoner, and this question is purely one of 
discretion with the Court. In our judgment the evidence must 
be received. [Exception reserved by the defense.] 

The photograph spoken of was here handed to witness. It 
was the same photograph which had been introduced in evi- 
dence during the preceding trial of the insurance case, being 
a picture of Mr. J. W. Langley sitting, and W. S. Goss stand- 
ing by the chair. 

Witness testified: This person standing facing me bears a 
strong resemblance to the face of the person I discovered in 
Baer's Woods. From the point of the nose upward, in par- 
ticular, there is a strong resemblance; also in the eyebrows and 
the hair. [A linen shirt, very much soiled, and somewhat torn, 
was handed witness.] — Witness (examining): That looks like 
the shirt found by the side of the body of the man found in the 
woods. I recognize it by the blood-stains, and more particu- 
larly by that button (indicating) ; I noticed that button particu- 
larly on the front part of the band ; I noticed at the time that it 
was a common porcelain button, and that the thread was not 



HOMICIDE. 245 

white; also these cuts in the shirt, one near the band, and these 
on the right side, near the front. I observed all these marks 
while the jury were holding the inquest, before the body was 
removed from the woods. 

Cross-examined by Mr. McVeagh. When Rhoades and I 
first raised the head and face, the face was white, and I looked 
at it closely with a view to determine whether I knew it, and 
concluded I had never seen the individual. I first saw the pho- 
tograph last Friday evening. It was exhibited to me by Mr. 
Hayes, the Commonwealth Attorney. He did not inform me 
who it was; I was not informed at any time whose photograph 
it was. Mr. Hayes showed it to me and asked me if either of 
those faces looked like the man I found, and I immediately 
recognized the man standing. — Question. Did not you know 
these were two photographs on the same plate — of the insurance 
agent and of this man whose body is alleged to have been 
found? — Answer, I never heard of that. — By the Court. Was 
the face bloated or swollen to any extent whatever? — Witness. 
I think not; I noticed it sufficiently to see, and, if bloated at 
all, it was very slightly. 

Hugh Rambo, Esq. — I am deputy coroner, and reside in 
Penningtonville. I was notified officially in this case by Mr. 
Rhoades, at about five or six o'clock in the evening of the nth 
of July, and empaneled a jury right away. We found a whis- 
ker on the right side ^ of the dead man's face; on the other 
side the whisker had been rubbed off by a stick, and adhered 
to the stick. I immediately wrapped it in a piece of paper for 
preservation. I took a small portion of the hair from the head 
and wrapped it in paper also. We then examined the body 
lower down and found a cut just below the breast-bone. We 
saw and examined several other cuts on the body, and then 
we took the body and carried it to the side of the turnpike. 
While we were getting the body out of the hole, my attention 
was called to a spot some sixty feet distant, by some parties 
who had discovered a freshly-made mound. I took my shovel 
and commenced to clear away the dirt, and there found the 
limbs. As it was growing dark, we removed the remains to 
Penningtonville. Examined witnesses same evening, and 
again next day. When the limbs were exhumed, there were 



246 HOMICIDE. 

a pair of white hose and a pair of shoes on the feet. I removed 
them from the limbs. [Witness here identified the gaiters and 
hose removed by him from the Hmbs.] At the place in the 
woods where the remains were found, the undergrowth is very 
thick, and there are many cedar trees. The limbs of the trees 
grow close to the ground and are full of branches. There was 
difificulty in seeing any distance, on account of the dense 
growth. Subsequently to the inquest there was another exami- 
nation of the remains by Doctors Lewis, Bailey, and Howard. 
Mr. Wanger, the District Attorney, was present at the time. — 
Cross-examination. The hair on the top of the head was loose; 
some of it was off — rubbed off and lying on the skin. The 
one whisker that remained was rather loose and afterwards 
rubbed of¥. The odor was very offensive. We packed the 
body in ice that evening. Also some disinfectant was placed 
upon it by Dr. Bailey. 

Dr. Elisha W. Bailey. — On the evening of the nth of July 
I received a message from acting coroner Rambo, to go to 
Baer's Woods and examine a body. I went there and found 
some eight or ten persons present. I examined the body as it 
lay in the shallow grave, and found there was one cut opening 
into it between the third and fourth ribs and about three inches 
from the breast-bone. There was another similar cut between 
the fifth and sixth ribs, one between the sixth and seventh ribs, 
and one between the eighth and ninths There was one other 
cut at the end of the breast-bone, another in the neck, on the 
left side, about an inch above the collar-bone. There was an 
incised wound commencing on the left side of the neck, run- 
ning across the windpipe and terminating on the opposite side 
of the neck. This wound opened into the windpipe. There 
was also a wound across the bridge of the nose at the lower 
third, depressing the cartilage. This wound showed that it was 
not done with a sharp instrument. I found that the front teeth, 
the four upper incisors, and the four below, had been driven 
back into the mouth. Two of them were lying loose on the 
tongue and the others were adhering. I removed them all from 
the mouth and have kept them in my possession. The hair 
upon the head was about an inch and a half in length, inclined 
to curl, and was of a dark brown color mixed with a few gray 



HOMICIDE. 247 

hairs. On the chin was a beard of several days' growth. The 
Hmbs were all disarticulated from the body, at the shoulder 
and hip joints. [Witness produced the teeth, which he had 
taken from the mouth, as stated by him.] The person had 
what I would call a very good set of teeth; they were firm and 
large, and appeared healthy and strong. At the time of the 
inquest I made an estimate of the age of the person and of his 
personal appearance. I considered him between thirty-five and 
forty years of age; five feet eight or nine inches in height; 
thirty-eight to forty inches girth of chest. The body showed 
an erect carriage, with the shoulders thrown back, throwing 
the chest well forward. The limbs were large, well developed, 
and appeared to be those of a man of good physique. The 
hands were evidently not those of a laboring man. 

Dr. E. Lloyd Howard. — I reside in Baltimore City; am a 
physician and surgeon by profession and practice; I reached 
Penningtonville on the evening of the 17th of July last. •On 
the 1 8th I witnessed the disinterment of a body in the burying- 
grouniat Penningtonville. This was in the afternoon. After 
the cofifin was opened I made a careful examination of the" re- 
mains. I found the body to be that of a white man, of about 
five feet eight inches in height, weighing about one hundred 
and seventy or one hundred and eighty pounds, and of stout 
frame. There were marks upon it indicating that a previous 
post-mortem examination had been held; also wounds which 
did not look as if they had been made for the purpose of ex- 
amination. There was attached to the head a bundle of hair 
lying loosely to the top of the head; none, however, attached to 
the scalp. The hair was about an inch and a half long, of a 
dark brown color, and some gray hairs scattered through it. 
I removed a small portion for subsequent examination. There 
were no whiskers upon the face, except upon the chin, where 
was a beard of a few days' growth. The head was well formed, 
rather large size. The forehead was straight and square ; large, 
full face, and still further enlarged, or slightly swollen, by 
post-mortem changes. The eyes were of a dark color; the 
exact shade could not be determined. The nose was well 
formed, and rather small. There were certain injuries about 
the face which I noticed; a cut across the nose, dividing the 



248 HOMICIDE. 

bones from the cartilage. This cut was not inflicted with a 
sharp instrument. There were also marks of injury about 
the mouth. The upper front teeth had been driven back into 
the mouth, carrying with them a part of the socket of the 
teeth. The blow upon the nose must have been a very severe 
one to have broken in the bone and cartilage in the manner 
it did. The blow upon the mouth also must have been a 
very severe one, to not only break in the teeth and knock 
them back, but also to break in the jaw-bone. I found ten 
teeth remaining in the upper jaw, and open, fresh sockets from 
which four others had been removed recently. Two upper jaw 
teeth had been lost previous to death. In the lower jaw I 
found nine teeth remaining in position, and evidence that five 
others had been lost immediately after death or immediately 
preceding it. There were evidences of two lower jaw teeth 
having been lost some months previous to death. At the time 
of death he must have had twenty-eight teeth in all remaining 
in his mouth. The teeth lost previous to death, both in the 
upper and lower jaw, were back teeth. The general, appear- 
ance and character of his teeth were perfectly good. They 
were white, even, and regular. There were three or four gold 
fillings, and there were slight marks of disease upon two teeth. 
The neck was large and thick. There was a wound across the 
front of the neck, dividing the windpipe and extending deeply 
into the tissues. The chest was large and capacious. The 
points it presented were that it had been opened in a previous 
post-mortem examination, and in addition thereto there were 
several wounds upon it. The exact nature or cause of those 
wounds it was impossible to determine. I examined the limbs, 
and found them cleanly disarticulated from the body at the 
shoulders and at the hip-joints; evidently removed by a sharp- 
cutting instrument. They were large and well developed. The 
wrists, ankles, feet, and hands were small for that sized frame. 
The nails were neatly trimmed, and the indications were that 
the man had not been accustomed to hard manual labor. The 
collar-bones were large, throwing the shoulders well back. — 
Cross-examination. At the time I went to Penningtonville, I 
volunteered to go with Dr. Lewis. Other persons accom- 
panied us, and were present at the time of the exhumation and 
examination of these remains. 



HOMICIDE. 240 

Alexander H. Barnitz. — I reside in the city of Baltimore; 
am in the office of the Assistant Treasurer of the United States. 
I was acquainted with Winfield S. Goss; have known him 
since 1859. I used to see him very frequently, almost daily, at 
the establishment of Harrington & Mills, where he was em- 
ployed. At that time I had the books of that firm in my 
charge. I was with him there a little over two years. During 
the time he was there I saw him daily. Afterwards I met him 
occasionally. I saw him frequently, just as I see other people 
in the streets of Baltimore whom I know. He was a man of 
about five feet eight inches in height; was well built, erect, 
unusually prominent bust, shoulders thrown well back; of 
full form, and well developed. He had dark eyes, straight 
nose, round, full face, dark, wavy hair, a prominent brow, and 
wide forehead. He had a stout neck. So far as I observed 
them, his teeth were very good. I simply saw them in con- 
versation. I was in Penningtonville with Dr. Lewis and Dr. 
Howard, on the 17th and i8th of July last, and witnessed the 
exhumation of the remains. I was requested to examine them 
critically and see if I could trace any resemblance between 
them and Goss; that is, if I could identify them. I remem- 
bered the appearance of Goss in his lifetime, especially his 
prominent breast, and this I recognized in the remains. I 
also recognized the brow and forehead as his, together with the 
general appearance of the face across the region of the eyes. 
— Cross-examination. The eyes were closed, not much sunken; 
there was no hair upon the head. I saw upon that corpse the 
features about the region of the eyes which I recognized as 
those of Goss. I saw there the expression that Goss wore in 
his lifetime. The eyes being closed did not destroy this ex- 
pression. 

A. R. Carter. — I reside in Baltimore; am agent of the Con- 
tinental Life Insurance Company. I was acquainted with 
Winfield S. Goss. He was a fine-looking man, about five feet 
eight or nine inches tall; dark brown hair, nearly black; had 
a beard and mustache when I knew him. His chest meas- 
urement was thirty-eight or forty inches, and he weighed one 
hundred and seventy-five pounds. He was of good figure, 
with broad shoulders. He had unusually fine teeth, as thev 



250 HOMICIDE. 

appeared in conversation. I was in Penningtonville on the 
1 8th of July last and saw the human remains which were there 
exhumed. I recognized the body as that of Winfield S. Goss. 
I recognized particularly the prominent forehead, full chest, 
and square build. When I knew Goss he was in a picture- 
frame gilding business. He also stated to me that he was en- 
gaged in manufacturing a substitute for india-rubber. — Cross- 
examination. The peculiarities by which I distinguished the 
remains as being those of Goss, were his prominent forehead, 
his full chest, and his square shoulders. — The Court. Do you 
mean to say that you recognized those remains as the remains 
of Goss, or that in the respect you have mentioned there was 
a resemblance? — Witness. I recognized them as his remains. 
They resembled him so closely I was positive they were his. 
I would have taken them for his if I had seen them anywhere 
else. 

Louis Engel. — I reside in Baltimore County, about one mile 
out from the city. I knew Winfield S. Goss. He lived at my 
father's house during the summer of 1871, and I was with him 
almost every day. He was a very fine-looking man; had a 
large chest; his shoulders were thrown well back; and he 
walked very straight. He had a broad forehead and had dark, 
heavy hair. He wore a finger ring with a blood-stone setting. 
It had square corners and flat top. The part that went round 
the finger was square on the edges and had a little groove in 
the middle of it. The ring was also a little bent, was not quite 
round. When he was living at our house I would take the 
ring from him sometimes; I would take it off his finger and 
put it on mine and wear it. I admired the ring very much. 
It was a very pretty ring. I never saw one like it since that 
time. — Question. Have you seen that ring since? — Answer. 
Yes, sir, at Penningtonville. I think it was on the 17th or 
18th of July last. — Question. State whether or not you gave a 
description of the ring then before you saw it. — Answer. Yes, 
sir, I did. — Question. Could you recognize it if you were to see 
it again? — Answer. I think I could. [Witness was handed a 
ring which he examined and said, " That is the ring."] Wit- 
ness continued: At the time Mr. Goss lived at our house he 
had a leather colored valise. I never examined it closely. 



HOMICIDE. 251 

[Witness was shown a valise.] It looked something like that; 
about that size and color. Goss sometimes drank liquor. I 
have seen him drink, and one time he borrowed money from 
me to buy liquor with. At one time I saw him drunk. — Cross- 
examination. The time I went to Penningtonville was upon 
the same occasion of which the others have spoken. — Question. 
Do you recollect, upon any occasion, of Mrs. Goss calling at 
your house, since the publication in the newspapers, about 
what you have mentioned in reference to this ring? — Answer. 
Mrs. Goss did not call at our house. — Question by Mr. Whitney. 
Do you recollect of calling at Mrs. Goss's house? — Answer. 
Yes, sir. She sent for me, and I went to her house. — Question. 
Do you recollect making any staternent there to the effect that 
you did not mean to be understood as saying that this was her 
husband's ring, but it was one similar to the one her husband 
wore? — Answer. I said it was the ring Mr. Goss had worn 
when he was at our house, and I thought it was his ring, and I 
have said that to dififerent persons. — Question. I am not asking 
what you told other people. Did you not say to her, in the 
presence of the family, that it was a ring that looked like the 
one that her husband wore, and that you thought it was the 
same? — Answer. There was no one in the room at the time 
but Mrs. Goss and myself. I said to her that I thought it was 
Mr. Goss's ring, and that I was positive of it. — Question by 
Mr. McVeagh. Where did you first hear of a ring found in 
this case? — Answer. I knew nothing of it until I reached 
Penningtonville. 

/. W. Langley. — I reside in Baltimore; am agent of the Con- 
tinental Life Insurance Company of New York. Have been 
acquainted with Winfield S. Goss many years. I first knew 
him in Nashville, Tennessee, and afterwards in Baltimore, 
Maryland. He was a man of medium height, large frame, full, 
deep chest, full weight. He had dark hair, inclined to curl. 
He had very fine front teeth. I was present with him in a 
photographic saloon at one time, at which time we had our 
pictures taken together. [The picture was shown to and iden- 
tified by witness.] In this picture Mr. Goss is standing, and 
I am sitting. That is the position we were in when this picture 
was taken. 



252 HOMICIDE. 

John Charles Smith. — I reside in Baltimore; I have known 
W. S. Goss. He boarded at Mr. Engel's, next door to where 
I lived. I saw him every day, passing him usually twice a day 
at the place where he boarded. He was of about the same 
size as myself — a little taller. He had dark, wavy hair, and 
dark whiskers. He weighed about one hundred and eighty 
pounds. 

Charles H. Jones. — I am room-clerk at the Central Hotel on 
Arch Street, Philadelphia. As guests come to the hotel, I see 
them register their names, and assign them rooms. [The hotel 
register of 1872 was shown to and identified by witness.] Un- 
der date of June 21, 1872, I saw the name of A. C. Wilson 
registered, as it appears here. I have no particular recollec- 
tion of the individual. He arrived in the evening and went 
away the next morning about nine o'clock. 

David R. Mullin. — I reside in Cooperstown, Delaware 
County, two miles south of Bryn Mawr Station. I am ac- 
quainted with the prisoner at the bar. The first I knew of him 
was when he was seven or eight years old, when he came to 
live with me and remained with me until he was sixteen. His 
mother then came for him and took him away to learn the 
blacksmith trade. After he had learned his trade, and when 
he was upwards of twenty-one years of age, he came back 
and lived in my neighborhood for a year or more. It was 
twelve or thirteen years ago when he came back to my neigh- 
borhood. I am acquainted with his handwriting, and have 
seen him write. He boarded with me while he was learning 
to write at a writing-school, which was after he had learned 
his trade. It was some two or three weeks, and was twelve 
or thirteen years ago. In the winter of 1871 I received two 
letters from him, to which I replied by one letter intended to 
answer both of his. I never saw him afterwards until I saw 
him here in the court-room. [Two letters were submitted to 
witness.] I received these letters through the post-office at 
West Haverford. I recognize the handwriting as William E. 
Udderzook's. 

The letters oflfered in evidence and read to the jury are as 
follows: 



HOMICIDE. 253 

Mr. Mullin : Baltimore, October 28, 1871. 

Dear Sir — I take pleasure in informing you that we are all well, 
and hope these few lines may find you all enjoying the same favor — 
it has been nearly one year since I seen or heard from you. I thought 
it my duty to inform you that I still exist. I have constant employ- 
ment, on cutters, in a factory, where over a hundred men are em- 
ployed. I should have written this letter sooner, but I am rather 
careless about writing. I suppose I have been prompted to this by 
a VERY PARTICULAR FRIEND OF MINE, he is a man of fine appearance, 
and about my age, and very well-to-do. But the large circle of 
acquaintances he is obliged to mingle with has been a great source 
of annoyance. It is his intention to leave the city for a few months 
in order to wean himself from so much company. I recommended 
Cooperstown as a quiet little place and just what would suit him. 
Now, if it would suit you folks to receive him as a boarder, please 
write soon and name the particulars. He will not want to leave 
Baltimore for a few weeks. Can we look for you down this fall? we 
would be pleased to see you in Baltimore. I spent a few days in 
Jennerville last June. Mother was well at that time, but since that 
time she was very near being killed by the cow that she was milking, 
all on account of a dog coming to her while she was milking. 

I would like to write much longer, but owing to the lateness of 
the hour I will close. Please answer very soon. 

Very Respt Yours 

Wm. E. Udderzook, 
No. 167 Conway St., 

Baltimore, Md. 

Mr. &Mrs. Mullin: ' Balt. Nov. i6th, 1871. 

I wrote a few lines to you some time since but I have not received 
an answer. I came to the conclusion that you did not receive it. 
I therefore take pleasure in writing again. 

I do not know that I have anything of much importance to com- 
municate at present. The State and City elections are over and I 
suppose you have heard the returns. The Republican ticket has been 
defeated very generally in this State. I was nominated by the Reform 
party, and endorsed by the Republican Nominating Convention. 
After the Convention adjourned a committee called on me and 
informed me of my nomination. This committee consisted of the 
President, Vice President and Secretary of the Ward, also fifteen 
Custom House ofificers, besides a number from the Post Office and 
the Naval Department, also a large number of citizens. 

Several speeches were made to which I responded. The next even- 
ing a mass meeting was called. I being present was conducted to 
the stand by the Sargt. at Arms, by the request of the President 
Amid loud & continued applause. I addressed the meeting, at 
considerable length. I was not elected by some considerable but run 



254 HOMICIDE. 

ahead of the Ticket thirty-one votes in my ward, my District consisted 
of Six Wards. I was five votes short of carrying the ward, which was 
closer than had been for some years. (Too many Roman Catholics,) 
the Democrat ticket in my District stood Eleven Catholics two Prot- 
estant, and all were elected. I wrote you in my last in regard to a 
friend of mine, that desired to weane himself from a number of his 
former associates. He has been in the way of getting a little intox- 
icated, I thought you might reform him, would it suit you to board 
him a few months or less. Please answer as soon as possible. 

My wife & two little ones are well. I have study employment 
making cutters for a large factory where over one hundred men are 
employed. Jos. Thomas & Son, corner of Park & Clay Streets. 

Give my respects to inquiring friends. 

Very Respt. Yours 

Wm. E. Udderzook, 
No. 167 Conway st, Baltimore, Md. 

Witness continued. — After I received the second letter I 
wrote in answer, informing him that I did not think it prudent 
for me to take a boarder at that time. Some time after that, 
on the 226. day of June, 1872, a man came to my house to 
board, and stated to me that his name was Wilson. A few 
days afterwards he arranged a Mexican vine on my porch, so 
that as the vine grew it spelled his full name, Alexander Camp- 
bell Wilson. He had no occupation. He came in the afternoon 
of the 226. of June, and remained until the i6th of the follow- 
ing November. He was a man of about five feet eight or 
nine inches; heavy, square build; very full in the breast. His 
hair was black, and his face cleanly shaved at the time he came. 
He let his side-whiskers and mustache grow after he came. 
[The photographic picture of Goss and Langley was shown to 
witness.] — Question. Do you recognize either of these in the 
picture? — Answer. Yes, sir; I recognize the one standing as 
Mr. Wilson's picture. When Wilson came to my house he 
came on foot and brought nothing with him. He went to 
Philadelphia and came back Sunday morning, bringing with 
him a valise. Wilson had a habit of drinking to excess, for 
which reason I declined to board him any longer. After he 
left my place I received a letter from Newark, New Jersey, 
purporting to come from him. There was a portion of his 
board bill unpaid when he left my house. I did not afterwards 
receive any pay other than a watch, which he sent me by Mr. 
M. V. Olrey. 



HOMICIDE. 255 

George Crook. — I have known Winfield S. Goss since 1868. 
On my first acquaintance with him I found him to be an in- 
temperate man. [The defense objects to evidence of W. S. 
Goss's habits of intemperance. The Commonwealth asks to 
show this habit with the view of identification. The objection 
is overruled, and exception noted.] He was a good-looking 
man; about forty years of age; would weigh one hundred and 
seventy-five or one hundred and eighty pounds. He was about 
five feet eight or nine inches in height; broad chest; dark brown 
hair; had a peculiar, active walk, and usually dressed neatly. 

Mrs. Sarah R. Mullin. — I am wife of David R. Mullin, who 
has been examined. A man by name of A. C. Wilson came to 
our house on the 21st of June, 1872, and then went away on 
the 22d, and came back on the 23d. When he came the sec- 
ond time he brought a leather valise. He was a stout built 
man, about five feet eight or nine inches, very full chest, his 
shoulders thrown back, rather dark hair and good teeth. He 
did nothing. In the fall he made a little house of acorns for a 
fair. [Witness was shown the picture of Goss and Langley.] 
The one in the picture who is standing is very much like Mr. 
Wilson. 

Mr. V. Olrey. — I formerly lived at the house of David R. 
Mullin in Cooperstown. I knew A. C. Wilson during the time 
he was at Mr. Mullin's. I saw him almost svery day during 
that time. He was a genteel-looking man about thirty-eight 
years old; broad shoulders and chest, shoulders thrown well 
back; dark brown hair, inclined to curl and turning gray; 
small hands and feet, and very large hips. My business called 
me to Philadelphia daily. At the request of Air. Wilson, I 
called at the Central Hotel, Philadelphia, for a black silk hat 
which he had left there. At his request I directed and sent 
small paper parcels, which usually weighed three or four 
ounces, and were sealed with wax. I gave the parcels to 
Adams Express Company, at their office in Philadelphia. One 
of these packages was sent about the 7th of August, 1872, 
another about the 15th of September, and another about the 
24th of September. The address which I wrote by his direc- 
tions upon the parcels was ''A. C. Goss, Calvert Street, Balti- 
more, Md.; eare of Stevens & Co^ At his request I went to 



256 HOMICIDE. 

Bryn Mawr post-office and inquired for his letters, and on 
several occasions obtained letters to his address, which I de- 
livered to him. They were all post-marked Baltimore. There 
was a cabinet furniture card printed on the envelope, purport- 
ing to be the trade-mark of Stevens & Co. Wilson and I con- 
versed about people in Baltimore as mutual acquaintances. He 
showed me the wooden model of a ratchet screw-driver which 
he claimed to be an invention of his own. It was so con- 
structed that a person using it could retain the same hold upon 
the handle and turn the screw-driver. [The picture of Goss 
and Langley shown to witness.] I recognize, in this picture, 
the one standing as Wilson's picture. — Cross-examined. I 
never saw a man look at all like that picture, except Wilson, 
nor bear any resemblance to him. It is by the general make- 
up of the man that I identify him in this picture. 

Abraham Good. — I reside in Cooperstown; am a carpenter 
by trade. I knew A. C. Wilson during the time he lived at 
Mr. Mullin's. I saw him three or four times every week. 
[The picture of Goss and Langley shown to witness.] I recog- 
nize the one standing, as A. C. Wilson. Wilson borrowed 
four and a half dollars in money from me. A short time after- 
wards he came to me and offered me a finger ring as a pledge 
for payment. I took the ring and kept it about one month. 
I then sent the ring to him, to his address at that time, in New- 
ark, New Jersey. I sent him at the same time the screw- 
driver model. The ring had a large stone setting. [The ring 
before introduced in evidence was handed to witness.] This 
looks like the ring. I sent it to him in a package, by express, 
about the ist of Januar}-. I sent it at his request. Whfle I 
had the ring in my possession I did not wear it, but put it away. 
I never examined it particularly. The screw-driver model was 
a double ratchet, made in three pieces ; the driver part had a 
stem to it that ran through the other two pieces, so that one 
could move the driver wdthout the handle turning in one's 
hand. I never saw one like it. It was peculiar. 

Newton Marshall. — I reside at Br}^n Mawr Station. I am 
ticket agent of the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, and agent 
of Adams Express Company. I have received packages 
through my office directed to A. C. Wilson, and delivered them 



HOMICIDE. 257 

to him, for which he receipted. [Receipt book of company 
handed to witness.] The first package was received on Octo- 
ber 1 6th, 1872. It was a paper package, probably eighteen 
inches long, by twelve wide, and three or four thick. It would 
weigh about eight pounds. It felt soft, like clothing. It came 
from Baltimore by the way of Philadelphia, as appears by the 
way-bill which is in this book. The next package came No- 
vember 23d, 1872, and was delivered to A. C. Wilson. It 
was a money package and said to contain $40. He receipted 
for it in this book. It came from Baltimore by way of Phila- 
delphia. I saw Wilson frequently in October and November, 
1872. I suppose I saw him nearly every day for a month. I 
became familiar with his appearance, in a business way, by his 
calling at my office. [Picture of Goss and Langley shown to 
witness.] The man standing in this picture is the man I de- 
livered the packages to. 

David Bachrach. — I reside in Baltimore ; am a photographer. 
[Picture of Goss and Langley shown to witness.] I have the 
negative those pictures were taken from, in my possession. 
[Witness produces and exhibits negative.] It is a picture of 
Winfield S. Goss and Mr. Langley. I had known Mr. Goss a 
few months before making that negative. This print [examin- 
ing photographic card heretofore introduced in evidence, rep- 
resenting one man standing and the other sitting] was made 
about a year ago, from this negative. At the time it was taken 
I did not notice anything on the finger of Mr. Goss. The pho- 
tograph shows he has a ring there. 

Annie E. Mullin. — I reside in Cooperstown, in the family of 
David R. Mullin. I knew A. C. Wilson while he lived in our 
family. He was a nice-looking gentleman; he had quite dark 
hair, a little curly. [The photograph introduced in evidence 
shown to witness.] The one standing is the picture of the 
gentleman who boarded at our house. [The seal ring hereto- 
fore introduced in evidence handed to witness.] That looks 
like the ring I saw him wear. 

Horatio C. Litzenherg. — I reside in Athensville, about a mile 
and a quarter from Cooperstown. I keep a hotel there. I 
knew A. C. Wilson. He came to my place to obtain board, 
and remained about a week. He drank occasionally; I saw 



258 HOMICIDE. 

him intoxicated twice. [Witness identified a due bill from A. 
C. Wilson to H. C. Litzenberg, dated November 23d, 1872.] 
I wrote the paper and he returned it to me signed. I did 
not see him write his name. 

Thomas R. Haley. — I reside in Athensville, and assist Mr. 
Litzenberg in his business. I knew a man who represented 
himself to be A. C. Wilson. He came to obtain board and 
remained about a week. He came on the i6th of November, 
1872, and went away on the 23d of same month. He was 
intoxicated several times while there. I refused him liquor at 
the bar several times. 

Mrs. Elisabeth Toombes. — I reside in Newark, New Jersey; 
am the wife of Isaac Toombes. Mr. A. C. Wilson came to my 
house November 29th, 1872, and remained there as a boarder 
during nearly seven months. I remember seeing the prisoner 
at the bar, on the nth day of May, 1873, at my house in 
Newark. He came to see A. C. Wilson. He was introduced 
to me by A. C. Wilson as Mr. Mullin. He came between 
five and six o'clock on Sunday morning. My husband con- 
ducted him upstairs to Mr. Wilson's room. He took break- 
fast with me. After breakfast, they made arrangements to go 
to New York; Wilson came and asked me for an umbrella. 
They then went away together, and returned together the same 
evening. They then took supper, after which they went to 
their room, upstairs; Mr. Udderzook left to take the cars a 
little before nine o'clock that night. I have not seen him 
from that time until I came into this court-room. Mr. Wilson 
left my house June 25th, 1873. It was Wednesday evening, 
between nine and ten o'clock. He left, as he said, to meet a 
friend in Philadelphia. He said he was going to Philadelphia. 
Mr. Wilson was what I would call a large man; full-chested, 
square shoulders, throwing his shoulders back, especially when 
walking. He had dark hair sprinkled with gray; whiskers the 
same. He wore side whiskers, with mustache somewhat con- 
nected with his whiskers — ^what I believe are called Burnside 
whiskers. His eyes were dark. He wore no beard on his 
chin. In conversation I observed his teeth. He had a very 
good set of teeth. He took with him. his overcoat; I should 
call it a very dark wine color. He had a pair of light panta- 



HOMICIDE. 259 

loons on when he went away, and a dark vest. He wore con- 
gress gaiters; he had no buttons on them. [Exhibiting shoes 
heretofore introduced in evidence.] They were something 
similar to those; I could not swear those were the shoes. His 
shoes were marked eights; he used to leave them on the rack 
in my hall. — Question. Where was the mark you saw? — An- 
swer. On the elastic, on the inside. — Question. On both 
shoes or only one? — Answer. I could not say as to that. — 
Question. See whether there is a mark in that shoe? — Answer. 
[Examining shoe.] It looks like the figure I saw in Mr. Wil- 
son's shoe. On the Tuesday before Mr. Wilson left (he was 
going away on Wednesday), he brought me a shirt and asked 
if I would wash it for him. Myself and girl washed and ironed 
it for him. It was a new shirt and rather difficult for the girl 
to iron, so I told her to leave it until after dinner and I would 
iron it. I did iron it, and in doing so I observed the band 
button was off at the back of the neck, and I sewed one on 
in its place. The shirt opened behind. There had been two 
buttons on — one on the yoke and one on the band. There 
was a button-hole in the front of the band around the neck; 
eyelet holes in the middle plait of bosom, for studs; a loop at 
the bottom of the bosom plaits, and plaits by the side of the 
middle plait. It was the first time it had been washed since it 
was done up new. Mr. Wilson had worn it a week previous. 
[The shirt heretofore introduced in evidence exhibited to wit- 
ness.] In respect to the buttons, button-holes, and the plaits, 
this shirt answers to the same description as the one I washed. 
When Mr. Wilson first came to my house he engaged board, 
and then went away and got his baggage, which consisted of a 
leather valise only. The valise had two handles placed so they 
could both be elapsed by the same hand. The inside partition 
of the valise was loose, as I learned by picking it up from the 
floor where he had thrown it. The partition was covered with 
blue paper, small figures. This partition was left behind by 
Wilson when he went away. When I moved house it was 
thrown away. The valise was tan-colored, and looked as 
though it had been roughly handled. There were three letters 
on one end, one of which I think was a C. [The valise hereto- 
fore introduced in evidence exhibited to witness.] It looks 



260 HOMICIDE. 

like the valise. The letters on the end are in the same place, 
but cannot say certain about them, as they are so much de- 
faced. The size of this valise, its color, and the color of the 
lining, correspond with that of Wilson's. At the time Wilson 
came to board with me, I lived at No. 275 Mulberry Street, 
and I moved on the first day of April, 1873, to No. 331 Mul- 
berry Street. When he left I was living at No. 331 Mulberry 
Street. When he came to board with me he wore no ring; 
but he often spoke of one which he owned, and when it came 
I was curious to see and examine it. I had it in my hands and 
examined it, and saw him wear it afterwards. I had it in my 
possession one afternoon last April. . It was handed me by a 
member of the family to give to Mr. Wilson. I put it on my 
finger until tea-time and then delivered it to Mr. Wilson. It 
was a gold ring with blood-stone setting. The stone was 
longer than it was wide. There was a groove around the gold 
band, a sort of beading. [The ring exhibited to witness.] It 
looks like the same ring. I placed it on this forefinger, be- 
cause it was loose for my other fingers. Mr. Wilson wore it 
on the ring-finger of his left hand. Mr. Wilson received letters 
by post, brought by the letter-carrier. They were addressed 
to Mr. A. C. Wilson. I did not often notice the post-mark, 
but I have noticed the post-mark Baltimore upon his letters. 
He has directed letters for me. I saw a letter he sent away. 
I saw that it was addressed to Miss Eliza Arden, Baltimore. 
He had a pair of eye-glasses. He never appeared to use them. 
I have seen him read and write. He did not then use them. 
He wore them by a cord about his neck, and carried them 
in his vest pocket. He had a habit of drinking. On several 
occasions he was very much intoxicated. When Mr. Udder- 
zook was at my house to see him, Mr. Wilson called Udder- 
zook " Doctor." He left on Wednesday evening. The next 
Saturday morning I received a note from him, written on Fri- 
day, dated from Philadelphia. I did not save it, I burned it. 
He wrote me saying that he enclosed $2.50, with which he 
wished me to pay $1.00 to the paper-man, and $1.50 to a Mr. 
Meyers, across the street from my house. He wrote that he 
was the most miserable man living, and wished himself back 
at our house again, and said he should sail for Europe on 



HOMICIDE. 261 

Saturday noon. There was no money in the letter. We had 
a private sitting-room for our boarders, and he frequently went 
into it. He had an invention which was called the model of a 
screw-driver. My attention was called* to it, but I could not 
explain what it was. [The name of A. Campbell Goss was 
here called, but he did not respond, and the examination of 
the above witness was continued as follows.] There was an- 
other person who called to see Mr. Wilson. I think it was 
during the last of January, 1873. He was introduced to me 
as Mr. Wilson's brother. He resembled Mr. Wilson. He 
came on a Sunday morning and left Monday afternoon. He 
called for a private room, and in the evening I gave them the 
dining-room to do some writing in. They were writing there 
all the evening. [The Goss-Langley picture was exhibited to 
witness.] I recognize the one standing to be Mr. Wilson. Mr. 
Wilson had no business while he was at my house. — Cross- 
examination. I saw the shirt before I saw it here, in the office 
of Mr. Wanger, the Commonwealth's Attorney. I also saw 
the shoes in the hands of other persons. I did not examine 
them. At the time Mr. Wilson lived with me, my family con- 
sisted of fifteen or twenty persons. Sometimes we had twelve 
to eighteen boarders. The latter part of last January a gentle- 
man, who represented himself as from Nashville, Tennessee, 
and as being a brother of A. C. Wilson, came to my house in 
Newark. He resembled Mr. Wilson. 

Miss Emma Taylor. — I reside in Newark and live with Mrs. 
Toombes, who has just been examined. At the time A. C. 
Wilson boarded at her house I knew Mr. Wilson; saw him 
daily at meal times, evenings, and on Sundays. He was a 
stout, fine-looking man, with full chest, very dark brown hair, 
slightly mixed with gray, and at that time wore a moustache 
and side whiskers. He had large, dark eyes, and heavy eye- 
brows. In talking he showed his teeth, which were very good. 
He had a large seal ring, which at one time he gave to me and 
I kept it about three weeks. I have not seen it since I parted 
with it. On the stone setting were two spots, which he pointed 
out to me, with a sort of a drip between them. The part which 
goes round the finger is not quite round in shape. [The ring 
heretofore introduced in evidence handed to witness. Witness 



262 HOMICIDE. 

takes the ring and proceeds to a window and closely examines 
it.] I cannot see the spots so distinctly as I remember them. 
The resemblance of the ring itself, and the shape and size is 
the same. — The Court. Let us see what those spots are. [The 
witness hands the ring to the judge, and explains what she 
means by the spots.] Mr. Wilson gave it to me to keep, and 
I wore it on that forefinger with two or three other rings. It 
was a rather tight fit on that finger then and it is the same now. 
I kept the ring about three weeks, and then gave it to Mrs. 
Toombes, and she returned it to Mr. Wilson. I have seen Mr. 
Udderzook, the prisoner at the bar, before. I saw him on the 
nth of May last, at the house of Mrs. Toombes. The way I 
remember or fix the date is because there was a lady friend 
visiting me, and she went away on Sunday, and the nth, when 
he came, was the Sunday week before she went away. [The 
Goss-Langley picture exhibited to witness.] I recognize the 
one standing as Mr. Wilson. He left Mrs. Toombes's family 
on the 25th of June. He told me he was going to Philadelphia. 
While he lived at Mrs. Toombes's he wrote me several notes. — 
Cross-examination. I recognize Mr. Wilson, in the picture, 
from the whole appearance of the person ; from the whole effect 
of the figure. When Mr. Wilson gave me the ring he was 
under the influence of liquor. I offered him the ring back 
several times when he was sober, and he would not take it. 
The notes he wrote me were upon small pieces of paper, which 
he placed in my hands. To some of them he signed his name 
A. C. Wilson, and to others no name at all. He wrote them 
frequently, sometimes three or four a day. Sometimes he and 
I would talk about the contents of the notes afterwards. I 
have a recollection of his handwriting, but not very distinct. 
[Commonwealth's Attorney proposed to offer two letters to 
witness and ask if she recognizes handwriting. One letter 
dated Newark, January 9, and received by David R. Mullin. 
The other addressed to S. R. Downs, June 19th, 1872.] 
Objected to by defense, and exception reserved. — By the Court. 
Do you recognize the handwriting? Look at it carefully and 
say whether you know that handwriting? Do you know the 
character of the writing? — Answer. Yes, sir. The writing is 
that of A. C. Wilson, to the best of my knowledge. 



HOMICIDE. 263 

The following are the letters shown to witness: 

S. R. Downs. 
Success L. i. 

Dear Sir — i have just noticed your advertisement in the New 
York herald, please drop me a few lines and state if you could not 
ACCOMMODATE an humble unassuming and good natured individual, 
as i profess to be for less money than your advertisement calls for, 
am easy to please, can put up with anything, all i want is to get in 
the country. Please let me hear from you at any rate with direc- 
tions how to find your house. 

Yours most resp't, 

A. C. Wilson. 

New York, Jan. 3, 1873. 
David R. Mullin, Esq., Cooperstown, Pa. 

Dear Governor — I have but just time to write you a few lines 
merely to inform you of my whereabouts and good health, &c., &c. 
Well as you see from this letter I am again in the great metropolis, 
hard at work, and working harder than I ever did before in my life. 
I am with a large firm here, that was among the sufferers from the 
Boston fire. Their loss is near a $100,000, and they are working hard 
to regain their former footing. I am glad that I have came to them 
in their distress for they were sorely in need of my assistance (humble 
as it may be) for in these hurried times they wanted no new hands, 
but old ones, and as I am familiar with their business as well as 
their custom, I need no instructions. I have been -to Philadelphia 
twice and to Boston once since I left you, and I leave here again 
to-night for Boston, and as soon as I return, I am off for the West 
for them. So you see my dear Governor I have my hands full. I 
have not had any leisure moments to myself since I have been here 
and will not until I return from my Western trip. These men have 
been my friends in times past and I am glad to have the oppor- 
tunity to reciprocate their kindness. Gov. you know that I was look- 
ing for a package by express when I left you. Well in that package 
I expected a $100. I have received the package, but only received 
$40 instead of $100. The truth of this you can find out from the 
clerk at Bryn Mawr station. Had I received the $100 I should have 
been able to pay you what I owe you, but as it is I hope you are not 
uneasy for I will not long remain in your debt. Now a few words 
about family matters and I will close my letter. The time that I 
lived in your family have been very pleasant and agreeable. I was 
treated by all like a gentleman and tried to the very best of my 
ability to act in accordance and I flatter myself that I succeeded 
until within a few days of my departure and then that DM old fool 
made me mad with his insults and then I made an ass of myself by 
drinking whisky. I would not have had it happen for anything, that 



264 HOMICIDE. 

I possess, particularly while in your house, but I can only say now 
that I am heartily ashamed of it, and hope that I will at no distant 
day have an opportunity to make atonement for it. I wish that I 
had all to go over again. How different I would act. My affairs in 
Tennessee are progressing favorable and I hope soon to be all right. 
Please remember me with kindness to your good wife and to Annie. 
Also to all inqiring friends. I have written Abe Good and he is to 
send me my ring and screw driver, and if you have no objection 
please give him watch. I need it very much in traveling. Write m.e 
a few lines and send it in the package that Abe is sending me. 
Hoping to hear from you soon I remain as ever. 

Yours most respectfully, 

A. C. Wilson. 

Mr. Hayes offered to show to the witness the letters of W. 
S. Goss to Dr. Steele. [Vide page 227.] Upon examining the 
handwriting witness said, " It looks like Mr. Wilson's writing, 
but not so distinctly. I think it is his to the best of my judg- 
ment." 

Isaac Toombes. — lam husband of Mrs. Toombes, who has 
testified. I knew A. C. Wilson, who was at my house about 
seven months. I saw him nearly every day. I was with him 
and conversed with him frequently. He was a fine-looking, 
stout, well-built man. He would throw his shoulders well back 
when he walked. He had a large, full chest; was about five 
feet eight inches tall, and wore side whiskers and mustache. 
His hair and whiskers were nearly black, mixed with gray. He 
had dark eyes. I have noticed his finger ring, have had it in 
my hands several times. We had a talk about the ring before 
it came, and when it came it had become a subject of curiosity, 
and we all took a look at it. [The ring heretofore introduced 
in evidence handed the witness.] It looks in every particular 
like his ring. [The photograph handed to witness.] I recog- 
nize the one standing to be Mr. Wilson. He would frequently 
drink to excess. I saw him when he left my house. He said 
he was going to Philadelphia. I have seen the prisoner, Mr. 
Udderzook, at my house. He was there on Sunday, the nth 
day of May, 1873. He came to see Mr. Wilson. He came 
soon after five o'clock in the morning and rang the bell. I got 
out of bed, and went to the door and let him in. He said he 
wanted to see Mr. Wilson. I told him I did not like to call 
Mr. Wilson at that hour, as there was another man who roomed 



HOMICIDE. 265 

with him. He said he was a particular friend of Mr. Wilson, 
and I asked him in. He followed me upstairs. I called Mr. 
Wilson and told him a gentleman wanted to see him. I turned 
and asked the gentleman his name, and he said " Doc." I re- 
peated " Doc? " He said, " All right," and then I left him and 
Wilson together. I afterwards saw them at breakfast together, 
sitting side by side. Mr. Wilson and he went away together, 
and I saw them at tea, on their return to my house the same 
evening. About nine o'clock they both left the house to go to 
the depot. Mr. Wilson came back alone. — Cross-examined. 
Mr. Wilson was not in any business. He spent his time mostly 
in the house. He would often lie abed in the afternoons. He 
would smoke after dinner and then go and lie down. After 
breakfast he would usually light his pipe and sit down to read 
the papers. Towards the last of his being there, he and the 
other gentlemen took a paper together. We commenced tak- 
ing it about the time the trial was going on in the insurance 
case in Baltimore. 

Samuel Reeve. — I reside in New York; am a jeweller by 
trade. I knew A. C. Wilson when I boarded with Mrs. 
Toombes, in Newark. I knew him from five to seven months. 
I saw him every day during the time I was there, which was 
from the day after Thanksgiving until the second week in 
April. He was a stout, broad-shouldered man, round, full 
chest, very straight back. I should think his height five feet 
eight to nine inches; weight, from one hundred and eighty to 
one hundred and ninety pounds; and from thirty-five to forty 
years of age. He had dark hair, side whiskers, and mustache. 
His chin was shaved. His eyes were dark. I roomed with 
him from the first night he came, and as long as I remained. 
I roomed with him after we moved. He had a valise; all the 
baggage I ever saw. [The valise heretofore introduced in evi- 
dence was where witness saw it] It was very much like that 
one; I think that is the valise. I have seen it opened, and I 
know the partition inside of his valise was broken. He used 
to drink to excess. I have seen him pretty tight several times. 
I saw and examined his finger ring several times while he was 
there. He asked me once or twice how much the ring was 
worth, and how much he could obtain by pawning it. [Ring 



266 HOMICIDE. 

exhibited to and identified by witness.] — The Court. How are 
you able to identify that? — Answer. The ring Wilson had, had 
a stone of the same material and of the same size, and had a 
beading from the setting, around the finger to the setting. 
The stone was set in the same manner as this. Usually, the 
setting, from the stone, flanges — is not square. This one is 
neither square nor slanting. I have seen an invention of his — 
the model of a revolving double-ratchet screw-driver. I have 
had it in my hands and examined it. I have seen him write 
letters in our room. Sometimes he gave the letters to me to 
mail for him in New York. I remember the address of A. C. 
Goss, Baltimore, upon the letters. I do not remember the 
street and number. I sent for him a package, by Adams Ex- 
press, from New York to Baltimore. It appeared like a news- 
paper rolled up in brown paper. It was addressed to A. C. 
Goss, Baltimore. He asked me to express it from New York. 
I worked in New York, and went back and forth every day. 
He had a pair of eye-glasses which he used to wear fastened to 
a black cord. I never saw him use them to place them on his 
eyes. [The Goss-Langley picture handed to witness.] The 
gentleman standing is Wilson. 

Franklin E. Mills. — I reside in Newark; was acquainted with 
A. C. Wilson at Mrs. Toombes' boarding-house. I knew him 
while I was there, which was from about the 15th of February 
to the 1st of April, 1873. He was a full-chested, broad- 
shouldered man ; dark hair, slightly mixed with gray, side whis- 
kers and mustache. I have mailed letters for him directed to 
A. C. Goss, Baltimore. I mailed them in New York, at his 
request. 

James R. Williams. — I reside in New York city; am a manu- 
facturer of jewelry by occupation. I knew A. C. Wilson in 
Newark, from the middle of May until the time he went away 
in June. I saw him leave Newark. He left in the evening of 
the 25th of June. I saw and examined his ring. [The ring 
shown to witness.] That is the ring. I recognize it because 
it is what is called a fine blood-stone, and it is a peculiarly 
made ring. I never saw any other ring made as this is, and I 
have been in the business some years. From the shank of the 
ring to the top of the head it is unusually flat. An American- 



HOMICIDE. 267 

made ring is usually higher. The stone is square, and the 
setting should be square with it. It is not so, however; the 
corners of the setting are rounded. [The Goss-Langley photo- 
graph exhibited to witness.] I recognize the tall person, who 
in the picture is standing, as A. C. Wilson. — Cross-examination. 
An American-made ring is usually higher; that is to say, this 
is flat for an American ring. I spoke of this fact when the 
ring was first shown to me by Wilson. I made the remark 
that the ring was probably made in America by an EngHsh- 
man. The stone is not uncommon. The only peculiarity I 
noticed about the ring is in its manufacture. The reason I 
took so much notice of that ring is because I was asked to 
buy it, and consequently I examined it thoroughly. The head 
of the ring, that is, the stone and setting combined, is low for 
an American-made ring. The English workmen make the 
head lower than we do, so that the ring may be worn with a 
glove. I should judge, as an expert, this ring was made to 
order, because of its peculiar make, rather than made in the 
usual ordinary course of manufacture. It is not a good piece 
of workmanship, nor a fine piece of jewelry. 

Augustus J. Saurine. — I reside in New York city; am a car- 
riage painter. I knew A. C. Wilson all the time he was at 
Mrs. Toombes's boarding-house. I boarded there myself and 
saw him nearly every day. [Witness identifies the photo- 
graphic picture of the man standing by the side of Langley as 
A. C. Wilson.]^ Two or three weeks before he left he bor- 
rowed a pair of boots from me to wear while he was having 
his shoes repaired. I saw his shoes; they were congress gai- 
ters. He had them half-soled, and he showed them to me after 
they had been repaired. [The shoes heretofore introduced in 
evidence exhibited to witness.] These shoes look like the same 
ones, but I would not swear positively they were the same. I 
have before seen the prisoner at the bar. I saw him in New- 
ark, at the house of Mrs. Toombes one Sunday morning. I 
heard the bell ring at the door and heard Mr. Toombes call 
Mr. Wilson. I heard Mr. Wilson open the door and say to 
Udderzook: " Hallo! Doc," and Udderzook answered: " Hallo! 
Sandy," 1 occupied the same room with Wilson at the time. 
I was in bed, but could see them both. They soon went out 



268 HOMICIDE. 

of the room, and I did not see them again until at breakfast. — : 
Cross-examination. I occupied the same room with Wilson 
about two months, the latter part of the time he was there. 

Edwin Sutton. — I reside in New York city; am a manufac- 
turing jeweller by trade. Have been in the business fifteen 
years. I knew A. C. Wilson about four months at the house 
of Mrs. Toombes in Newark. I roomed with him about one 
month. [Photograph heretofore offered in evidence handed to 
witness.] The person standing in this picture I recognize as 
A. C. Wilson. I have seen him have a finger-ring. [Ring 
handed to witness.] That is the ring which I have seen A. C. 
Wilson wear. I recognize it by the beading running all the 
way round the shank, and by the peculiar shape of the head 
and setting. The stone is an oblong square, while the setting 
is not square, but rounded at the corners. He showed me the 
ring to know what it was worth, and I examined it at the time. 
I have seen him write, but never examined his writing. I once 
posted a paper for him, mailing it at Station C, New York city. 
It was addressed to an attorney-at-law, Baltimore, Md. I saw 
an invention of his. It was a wooden model of a screw-driver, 
with a revolving handle working with a double ratchet. I have 
seen the prisoner at the bar. I saw him in Mr. Wilson's room 
at Mrs. Toombes's house, on the nth day of May, 1873. Wil- 
son introduced the prisoner to me as Mr. Mullin. He asked 
me about the trains to New York. I did not see them again 
until evening. Wilson called the prisoner " Doctor " when he 
spoke to him. — Cross-examined. I should think this ring was 
made to order, because I never before saw one with a beading 
all round, and with the setting rounded off at the corners when 
it should be perfectly square. When Wilson showed me the 
ring I noticed it had been mended by soldering upon the in- 
side of the shank. 

Mrs. Mullin, recalled. — Mr. Hayes: I propose to show this 
witness a promissory note dated Cooperstown, September 
20th, 1872, signed by Henry Rouple, in favor of witness, for 
$75. Look at that paper and say what you have to say of it. 
Who wrote it? — Answer. Mr. A. C. Wilson. I saw him 
write it. I requested him to write it for me, and he wrote it 
in my presence. 



HOMICIDE. 269 

Michael O'Donnel. — I reside in New York city; am a manu- 
facturing jeweler. I knew A. C. Wilson from the first week in 
January, 1873, until he left Mrs. Toombes's, where we both 
boarded at the time. At one time I roomed with him. He 
had a valise with him. To the best of my recollection this 
valise now shown to me is the same valise Wilson had. [Pho- 
tograph heretofore introduced handed to witness.] The gen- 
tleman standing I recognize as A. C. Wilson. I saw the pris- 
oner at the bar on the nth day of May, at Mrs. Toombes's 
boarding house. I first saw him there at breakfast. Mr. Wil- 
son called the prisoner '' Doc," and introduced him to me as 
Mr. Mullin. Wilson wore eye-glasses upon a round, black 
cord, which was around his neck. I never saw him use the 
glasses to look through. I have seen him read and write. I 
once asked him for a button, and he said: " Why don't you get 
buttons put on like mine?" and he showed me that the buttons 
upon his pantaloons were riveted on. On the afternoon of the 
day he went away, I gave him a bone collar-button, or stud. 
I had had the button some eighteen months before I gave it to 
him. The button looked as though it had been smoked. It 
was of a brownish color. When I gave it to him he put it in 
the collar-band of his shirt, and buttoned his collar with it. — 
Question. Look at this button, and give us your opinion about 
it. — Answer. That is the same button I gave to Wilson, to the 
best of my recollection. — Cross-examined. I gave him the but- 
ton because I had made myself a gold one, and was putting 
the gold one in my shirt when he asked me for the bone but- 
ton, and I gave it to him. He at once put the button or stud 
into his shirt-collar band. I bought the bone button in New 
York, at a place where there were many more. It was discol- 
ored when I bought it, just the same tinge to it as it has now. 

The prosecution offered to show by this witness that Wilson 
had stated himself interested in an insurance suit which, at first, 
he was afraid he would lose. If they succeeded, his share was 
to be $15,000. Wilson subsequently told witness that the 
suit had been successful, and endeavored to induce the witness 
to join him in a scheme to cheat the insurance companies, say- 
ing it would be very easy to do so by effecting an insurance 
upon his, Wilson's, life, and then he would disappear and go to 



270 HOMICIDE. 

Europe. The offer was made to show that such a suit was 
actually progressing in Baltimore. The Court said the trans- 
action was a fact, but this was a declaration of the deceased, 
and could not be admitted as yet. If a fraudulent combina- 
tion be proven, then it might be. At present it could not be 
admitted. 

Benjamin C. N orris. — I reside in Newark; am a house 
builder by occupation. I knew a man who called himself A. 
C. Wilson, who boarded with Mrs. Toombes. [The witness 
was shown the photograph.] The one standing resembles the 
gentleman whom I knew as A. C. Wilson. He at one time 
called my attention to a pair of pants he had; the pants were 
much worn. They were a light-colored brown pants. The 
seat of them was darned very much. He darned them with 
a needle and thread. [A pair of pantaloons handed to witness.] 
I think these are the pants; it looks like them, at all events. 
There is the darning; I am able to say they are the same pants. 
I last saw them in his room. He had his valise lying on the 
bed — lying open, and he was about taking it up to go away. 
He had no room in his valise to put them. 

Mrs. Toombes, recalled. — When Mr. Wilson went away from 
my house last June, he left a coat and a pair of pantaloons. 
They were light-colored pantaloons. [Same pantaloons as 
shown to previous witness were handed to this witness.] I 
think these are the same ones Mr. Wilson left there. I recog- 
nize them by this darning, which I saw him do. I noticed it 
at the time, and spoke to him about it. His coat was a long, 
black frock coat. It was an old coat. [Handing witness a 
black cloth coat.] That is the same coat. 

Augustus J. Saurine, recalled. — Mr. Wilson left a pair of old 
pantaloons and an old coat when he went away from Mrs. 
Toombes's house. They were light-colored pantaloons, with 
brown spots in them. He offered them to me to work in as 
overalls. I never used them. I was rooming with him when 
he went away. [The coat and pantaloons heretofore intro- 
duced were shown to witness.] These are the same pants that 
he gave to me, and this is the very same kind of coat he had. 
It was left in the room when he went away. 

Louis Engel, recalled. — I have testified before and stated that 



HOMICIDE. 271 

Winfield S. Goss formerly boarded in our family. When Mr. 
Goss was living at our house he had a pair of light pantaloons, 
mixed with brown, and a vest of the same color. The pants 
had a welt on the side. I was with him almost every day, and 
he wore those pants then. He was boarding with us about 
four months, and he wore those pants most all of that time. 
[The pantaloons shown to previous witnesses were shown to 
this witness.] To the best of my recollection these are the 
same pantaloons. — Cross-examination. When Mr. Goss board- 
ed with us, it was in the summer of 187 1. I do not remember 
the color of the pantaloons which my father or my brother 
wore that summer. — Question. Now, what is your particular 
reason for remembering the color of Mr. Goss's pantaloons in 
that summer, when you do not remember the color of your 
father's or your brother's? — Answer. Because his wife wanted 
me, at one time, to help her wash these pantaloons; and she 
washed them, and I helped her do it. I never washed my 
father's, my brother's, nor my own pantaloons. I noticed the 
welt on the side then. 

Mr. Litzenherg, recalled. — I have said that Mr. Wilson 
boarded with me a week or ten days at my place in Athens- 
ville. When he went away he left a coat there. It was a dark 
frock-coat; it was long-waisted, with short skirts. [A coat 
handed to witness.] I believe this to be the coat he left at 
my place. 

Mr. Sutton, recalled. — Mr. Wilson had a pair of light-colored 
pantaloons when he boarded at Mrs. Toombes's house, and 
when I roomed with him. I noticed they were darned con- 
siderably in the seat, and that they were rather short for him 
when he wore them. 

John W. Butler. — I reside in Baltimore; am a manufacturer 
of wood-work. I knew Winfield S. Goss several years; was 
well acquainted with him. He showed me a screw-driver with 
a ratchet attachment. It was some time ago. According to 
my recollection it was of wood. It was so made you could 
keep firm hold of the handle in using it, as the driver would 
catch on the ratchet. It was between 1869 and 1871 that he 
showed it to me. I have corresponded with Winfield S. Goss, 
receiving letters from him, and answering them. We corre- 



272 HOMICIDE. 

sponded through Uvo or three years. I used to know his hand- 
writing quite well. I think I would know it now. — Cross-exam- 
ined. I have none of his letters now; I destroyed them years 
ago. [Witness was closely examined by Mr. McVeagh as to 
his competency to testify upon the handwriting of W. S. Goss, 
and on completing his examination J\Ir. McVeagh remarked, 
" I think he is competent to testify on this subject."] — Re-direct. 
A letter addressed to Dr. Steele was declared by the witness 
to be the handwriting of W. S. Goss; another letter, without 
address or date, signed W. S. Goss, was also declared the 
same handwriting. A letter signed A. C. Wilson, written to 
S. R. Downs, dated Newark, June 19th, 1873, was declared by 
the witness to be the same handwriting. In reference to the 
letter, the witness said it was a little difficult to keep out of 
mind the other letters before him, which are signed by Goss, 
but in looking at the character of the handwriting signed A. 
C. Wilson, and trying to carry in his mind the character of the 
handwriting of Goss, he recognized it as Goss's handwriting. 
It was his judgment that Goss wrote it. A letter was shown 
witness, dated Xew York, January 3d, 1872, signed A. C, Wil- 
son, written to David R. Mullin, Cooperstown, Pa., in ex- 
amining which the witness said that in his judgment it was 
the handwriting of W. S. Goss. The signatures of A. C. Wil- 
son to sundry papers heretofore introduced in evidence were 
shown to witness, who said he could only speak of them by 
comparison. They appeared to be Goss's handwriting. Of 
the signature in the register of the Central Hotel, at Phila- 
delphia, under date of Friday, June 21st, 1872, the witness said 
he should take that to be written by Goss. 

The jury were withdrawn at this point of the case, and a 
discussion ensued, before the Court alone, as follows: 

Mr. Hayes, the Commonwealth's Attorney, said that they 
proposed to show that W. S. Goss, alias A. C. Wilson, within 
about a year prior to the burning of a house on the York Road, 
in Baltimore, Md., February 2d, 1872, procured sundr}^ insur- 
ances upon his life, to the extent of $25,000. At the time this 
fire took place, William E. Udderzook and others alleged that 
Goss was burned to death, and the prisoner at the bar made an 
affidavit to that fact and presented it to the insurance compa- 



HOMICIDE. 273 

nies for the purpose of procuring the sum insured for Mrs. 
EHza W. Goss, in whose benefit the insurances were written. 
The prosecuting counsel further proposed to show the institu- 
tion of suits against the several insurance companies; the ap- 
pearance of the prisoner as chief witness in behalf of Mrs. 
Goss; the result of the test suit; the motion for a new trial, 
setting forth that the insurance companies would show, if 
time were given them, that W. S. Goss was still living; and 
that it was while this motion was pending before the Court, 
the prisoner persuaded A. C. Wilson, alias W. S. Goss, to meet 
him in Philadelphia, at the William Penn Hotel, and took him 
thence to Jennerville, and thence to a point at or near Baer's 
Woods, for the purpose of murdering him, and there murdered 
him. 

Mr. McVeagh, the prisoner's counsel, argued strongly against 
the admissibility of such evidence. The prisoner was not on 
trial for a conspiracy to defraud insurance companies. The 
offer of the Commonwealth's Attorney was an effort, in part at 
least, to introduce the acts and declarations of an alleged co- 
conspirator as against his alleged murderer on a trial for his 
life. If the prisoner was now upon trial for conspiracy with W. 
S. Goss to defraud these insurance companies, and previous 
evidence had been introduced as to concert of action between 
them, the acts and declarations and conduct, in every respect, 
of Goss, bearing possibly upon the conspiracy, might, under 
the latitude that prevails in reference to this matter, be ad- 
mitted. But when the conspiracy is ended, when the relations 
have changed, and the relations of hostility commenced, and 
the hostilities alleged to have been carried to the point of 
murder, and the prisoner is upon trial for his life, charged 
with having murdered a co-conspirator, then, the counsel 
argued, the saving efficacy of another rule can be invoked in 
the prisoner's favor, — that only such acts as are immediately 
and directly concerned with him are to be given in evidence 
against him. 

The Court. — The Court does not fail to understand the im- 
portance of this offer, to the prisoner as well as to the Com- 
monwealth. It may be that some parts of the offer are not 
evidence. The main features of the offer, however, are evi- 



274 HOMICIDE. 

dence that we must hear. It is the right of the prisoner to 
. have the benefit of every reasonable doubt, as well in regard to 
law as to facts, and nothing will be admitted or has been ad- 
mitted to the Commonwealth, in respect to which the Court 
has entertained a doubt; and nothing will be excluded that 
may be offered by the defendant in reference to which the 
Court may have a doubt. The main features of the evidence 
offered bear upon two branches of the cause. First, the iden- 
tity of the man who was known as A. C. Wilson with Goss. 
Second, the motive w^hich may have actuated the prisoner. 
There is evidence for the consideration of the jury, that this 
man, known in New Jersey as Wilson, was Goss. But Goss 
belongs in Baltimore. Now, it is proper that the Common- 
wealth should show — indeed, it is necessary that it show — why 
it is that this man is there living as he lived, and known 
by another name. It is very important. If they fail to show 
it, the argument will be, no motive shown for change of name ; 
no motive for this man residing in New Jersey who belonged 
in Baltimore. There is evidence for the consideration of the 
jury, that this man was seen in New Jersey subsequently to the 
fire, and subsequently to the commencement of the suits against 
the life-insurance companies. If the jury believe that evi- 
dence, and find that this man Wilson was Goss, it would be 
for them to reach a conclusion, which would to them seem to 
follow, that Goss had entered into a corrupt scheme to obtain 
money from the insurance companies, and thus the motive is 
at once shown why he should disappear from Baltimore, and 
why he should change his name and hide from the world as 
Goss. Thus it is seen that in that respect the testimony must 
be heard. What he said, thus far we have not heard, and do 
not propose to hear. The fact that he was insured, the fact 
that that there was a fire, and that Goss is alleged to be dead, 
may be shown. Then there is another aspect in which the 
testimony must be heard. As it is shown in evidence, this 
man, after the fire, appeared in New Jersey under an assumed 
name. Now, it is proposed to show that the prisoner at the 
bar, under this condition of circumstances, made affidavit that 
he was dead, which affidavit Was the basis of the suits against 
the insurance companies, that he appeared as the main witness 



HOMICIDE. 275 

in those suits, testifying that he was dead. Now, if the jury 
finds that Goss, at that time, was hving in New Jersey under 
an assumed name, then it would seem to result that the prisoner 
was also in the scheme and perpetrated a fraud against the 
insurance companies. The conclusion would seem to be legiti- 
mate that he was to have a portion of the fruits. To keep 
Goss concealed from the world was necessary not only for the 
success of this fraud, but also to secure the prisoner against 
consequences which might follow discovery and exposure. 
Thus a motive may be found for concealing him in the most 
effectual way, by taking his life when, peradventure, it was 
discovered that a concealment without it could no longer be 
successful. It is in these aspects of the case that the Court 
thinks the ofifer is proper, and the testimony must be heard. 
The Court will note an exception to the whole ofifer and to 
every part of it, and will overrule it at present only in respect 
to a part. 

The jury were then recalled. Evidence was now introduced 
giving the history of the insurance written upon the life of 
Goss, and of the facts relating to the fire upon the York Road, 
together with the medical testimony as to the examination of 
the charred remains found in the ruins. It was substantially 
the same as that given at the insurance trial, and it is therefore 
unnecessary to reiterate it here. A few additional facts, which 
furnished cumulative or corroborative evidence, appeared in 
this testimony. Louis Engel testified that Goss sometimes 
called Udderzook " Doctor," when addressing him. Engel 
also described the double ratchet screw-driver model, which 
Goss had frequently exhibited as being his own invention. 
One new and important fact appeared in the evidence of 
Thomas D. Loudenslager, who testified as follows: — I reside in 
Baltimore. I am acquainted with the prisoner at the bar. 
For about three years and a half we worked together at the 
same shop, in the employ of Joseph Thomas & Son, on Clay 
Street, Baltimore. He first worked for them about eighteen 
months, then left for a while, and then came back again and 
worked about eighteen months longer, when he was dis- 
charged. The time he was discharged was about two months 
after the fire on the York Road. On the dav of the fire a 



276 HOMICIDE. 

box came to our place and was unloaded and set on the pave- 
ment. That was in the forenoon, and after dinner it was taken 
away by Udderzook and W. S. Goss, in an express wagon. 
At the time it arrived I was in the second story of the factory, 
looking out the doorway, and was quite near them. The box 
was four or five feet or more in length, and about fifteen inches 
wide and high. It was closed up all round. Udderzook came 
up to where I was, after helping to unload the box, while it 
was still there on the pavement. Three other workmen and 
myself were standing together. One of them asked him what 
was in the box, and he said it contained machinery for their 
laboratory on the York Road. — Cross-examination. The box 
was taken away in an express wagon soon after one o'clock 
that same afternoon. It was brought there in an express 
wagon between ten and twelve in the forenoon. It was placed 
on the street pavement. It came there and was taken away 
the same day of the fire on the York Road. The fire oc- 
curred that night, and I heard of it the next morning. I have 
always lived in Baltimore. I first made known the facts about 
this box, soon after the discovery of this murder. I knew of 
the insurance suits, and of the contest being over the remains 
found there on the York Road. I did not give information at 
the time about this box, because I did not want to be sub- 
poenaed. — To the Court. Udderzook was working in our es- 
tablishment at the time of the fire. He worked there in the 
morning of the day when the box came, but not in the after- 
noon. 

William B. Crockett. — I reside in Newark, New Jersey; am 
a merchant dealing in gentlemen's furnishing goods. I knew 
a man who boarded in Mulberry Street, who was known to me 
by the name of A. C. Wilson. He called at my store two or 
three times. He was a man of near six feet, probably shorter, 
not taller; he had side whiskers; was a well-built man; neck 
about sixteen inches. [The photograph heretofore introduced 
in evidence was handed to witness.] I recognize the man 
standing as the man to whom I sold goods in my store in 
Newark. I sold him a shirt, some socks, and a box of collars. 
I have never seen the shirt since, nor the stockings, nor the 
collars. No one has since described them to me, nor have I 



HOMICIDE. 277 

ever heard or read any description of either of them. We 
have a system, in our store, of marking shirts. It is a system 
that does not exist anywhere else to my knowledge. I have 
with me a box of shirts marked in the way which is peculiar 
to our store. We have used this mark about five years. The 
manner of our marking is this: We start with the number 35, 
which is our lowest number, and adjoining the number is the 
letter " E." Next to the letter is the size of the neck band, 
then comes the length of the sleeve. We have different grades. 
That is our lowest grade. The next grade is ''45. E.," neck 
and sleeve as before. The next is "48. E.," neck and sleeve; 
next, "5. 45. R," neck and sleeve; then, "58. R," "67. E.," 
" 6. 25. R," and lastly, " 6. M. E.," On some of our shirts is a 
star at the end of the lettering which denotes the extra size of 
the yoke. The " E." upon the shirts I have described means 
open back with eyelets in the bosom. Without the '' R" they 
are open fronts, with buttons. The number denotes the quality. 
The marks are placed on the front of the shirt, on its skirt, 
and will not easily wash out. Another peculiarity of our shirts 
is the shape of the tab at the bottom of the bosom, placed 
there to hold the bosom down. The stamping is done with 
type. I do not recollect the quality of shirt I sold to A. C. 
Wilson. It was in June last but I cannot say what day. [The 
shirt found in the grave, in Baer's Woods, and heretofore intro- 
duced in evidence, was handed to witness, with a request that 
he should examine it carefully.] That is our shirt. The tab is 
the same, and marked " 5. 45. E., 16. 34." I speak with con- 
fidence. The size of the neck is sixteen inches, and the length 
of sleeve thirty-four inches. 

William S. Hines. — I reside in Baltimore; am a merchant 
tailor; was acquainted with W. S. Goss, having known him 
about sixteen years. I have done work for him, and now have 
his measure. My last measure for him is for a black frock 
coat. It was taken July 27, 1866, and is entered upon my- 
book as follows: Lensfth of waist, nineteen inches: whole 
length of coat, forty inches; half width of back, seven and three- 
fourths inches; at the elbow, twenty inches; whole length of 
sleeve, thirty-two inches: breast measure, thirty-six and one- 
half inches; waist, thirty-four inches. [The coat identified by 



278 HOMICIDE. 

Mrs. Toombes of Newark was handed to witness.] This coat 
has very much the appearance of my make of coat at that date. 
It is an old-fashioned coat now. The sleeve-Unings and inside 
work still retain the marks of my manufacture. The measure- 
ments compare exactly with the measure I took of W. S. Goss. 
My custom is to write the name of the person for whom the 
coat is made, or his initials, upon the inside of the loops by 
which the coat is hung up. There is a name, or letters written 
upon this, but it has become so indistinct as to be scarcely dis- 
cernible. — The Court. Suppose you try a magnifying-glass upon 
it. Witness. [After examining with a magnifying-glass.] I see 
what appears to be '' W. S." — but the remainder of the writing 
I cannot make out. 

Robert H. Hodgson. — I reside in New London, Chester 
County; am acquainted with Mr. Udderzook, the prisoner at 
the bar. I saw him on the 28th day of June last, late in the 
afternoon, in the city of Wilmington, Delaware. He took a 
seat by my side in the cars, and rode with me from Wilming- 
ton to Philadelphia. We left the cars together, separated at 
the depot, and I have not seen him since until I saw him here. 
We conversed much of the time while in the cars. He told 
me he was going to New York. He told me he had come 
from Baltimore. It was on the last Saturday in June, the 28th. 

Josiah Jacobs. — I reside in Philadelphia; am clerk and bar- 
tender in the William Penn Hotel. I recognize the prisoner 
at the bar as a man whom I saw on the 28th day of June last. 
He came to the hotel and asked for A. C. Wilson, who was 
then in his room, and I showed the prisoner to Wilson's room. 
I knocked at the door and told Wilson a friend was there to 
see him. The prisoner was at once admitted to the room. I 
saw him again at breakfast the next morning. He brought no 
baggage with him, and he and Wilson both went away imme- 
diately after breakfast. Wilson arrived at the hotel on the 
26th of June, before dinner. He brought no baggage at first, 
but that afternoon he brought to the hotel a leather valise. He 
registered his name in my presence. [The register of the 
William Penn Hotel, under date of June 26, 1873, was handed 
to witness, who identified the name of A. C. Wilson as the 
name he saw registered.] Mr. Udderzook did not register. 



HOMICIDE. 279 

Wilson remained in his room much of the time while at the 
hotel. 

Francis M, Pyle. — I am a farmer by occupation and reside 
in West Grove, Chester County, Pennsylvania. I saw the 
prisoner at the bar on Monday, the 30th of June last, in the 
forenoon. I was at the time putting hay into my barn, when I 
heard footsteps on the barn floor, and upon looking I saw two 
men, one of whom I recognized as William Udderzook. The 
other man was a stranger to me. I went up and spoke to them, 
and they answered me. Udderzook spoke as though he did 
not know me, at least I thought so. I have known his mother 
and his two brothers since about 1854, and I at once recog- 
nized him. I asked them if they were strangers in the neigh- 
borhood. Udderzook replied they were, and that they had 
come from the city for a little recreation, and to go fishing 
along the creek. I went to my house and left them at the 
barn. I was absent at my house about half an hour, and then 
on coming out I met Udderzook, who asked me if he could 
get a pie at my house. I referred him to the women, and told 
him they were pretty busy, as it was washing-day. He went 
into the house and I went to my barn. Soon afterwards I saw 
Udderzook with my little boy, going towards the stranger 
whom I had first seen with Udderzook. The stranger was 
standing near the fence by my orchard, about one hundred 
yards distant from where I then was. Udderzook was carry- 
ing a plate, and the little boy had a pitcher. The gong rang 
for dinner and I went into the house. I recollect that Udder- 
zook wore a straw hat, and was dressed in blue coat and panta- 
loons. I noticed that he had boots on, and had turned up 
the bottoms of his pantaloons, as it had rained that day. The 
stranger was a large-sized man; dark hair, side whiskers and 
mustache. His eyes were dark. He would weigh, I suppose, 
one hundred and seventy to one hundred and eighty pounds. 
He wore light-colored pantaloons. He had on no coat when 
I saw him. When he was sitting down I noticed that he wore 
gaiters, but I did not observe them more than simply to re- 
member the fact th^ he had on gaiters such as gentlemen 
sometimes wear. When he spoke I noticed he showed his 
teeth, and that they appeared to be good. He wore a dark cap. 



280 HOMICIDE. 

I think he had no collar on. I noticed that he wore a ring 
upon one finger, but I could not describe it. [Photograph 
heretofore introduced in evidence shown to witness.] The man 
standing looks like the stranger whom I saw with Udderzook. 
I reside one-quarter of a mile northwest of West Grove, on 
the road leading from West Grove to Jennerville, and about 
two miles from Jennerville. Baer's Woods is about ten miles 
distant from my place. — Cross-examined. I fix the day and 
date, because it was on the day I commenced mowing. There 
were two or three showers that day. They came into the bam 
for shelter from the rain. I have been acquainted with the 
Udderzook family ever since 1854, but I had not seen William 
for some seven or eight years or more. I made up my mind that 
it was he, and when I went into my house I told my wife 
there were a couple of strangers in the barn, and that I be- 
lieved one of them was Jane Udderzook's son William. I did 
not talk much with them. They did not seem to want to talk 
much. I tried to enter into conversation with them, but they 
did not wish to talk. The stranger mentioned having been to 
my cherr}^-tree, and Udderzook said they had stepped into the 
barn out of the rain. I did not make myself known to Udder- 
zook, nor ask him if he was William Udderzook. I was cer- 
tain it was he. The stranger was a man of striking appearance, 
and I would have recognized him the next day amongst a 
hundred, from his general appearance. 

Elmer Pyle. — A bright, intelligent-looking boy of ten years, 
was called, and examined by the Court, and then qualified as 
a witness. I am a son of Mr. Francis AI. Pyle. I have seen 
the prisoner before. It looks like him. It was some time last 
June, on IMonday, I think. I was on my father's farm. I first 
saw him coming up the road, and next saw him under the 
cherry-tree, by the road-side. I again saw him at the upper 
end of our orchard. There was a man with him. I was with 
them a good bit. The first time I heard them talk much to 
each other was about the eye-glasses. They were then at the 
cherr}^-tree. I was there too. I went down there to them. 
The one who had the cap on, not the prisoner, wanted to look 
for cherries. Then he asked this man here (Udderzook) if he 
had seen anything of his eye-glasses, and they looked around 



HOMICIDE. 281 

on the ground for them. After this he found them behind his 
back. They were fastened to a black string, and were hanging 
down behind his back. I saw them there. He then com- 
menced to look for cherries and then he said: "Doctor, you 
had better go up to the shed, out of the rain." The doctor 
called the other man " Comrade." Then I went away. I saw 
them afterwards at the upper part of the orchard. I went to 
the house, and father was going to the barn and met the doctor 
coming towards the house. The doctor asked if he could have 
something for himself and comrade to eat. Father told him 
to inquire at the house, and I went with him to the house. He 
asked mother for something to eat, and she told him to go 
round to the front porch, and he did so. She got him some- 
thing to eat, and asked him if he wanted some water, and 
he said "Yes." So I went for a pitcher and tumbler, and 
then he went up to where the other man was under the tree. 
They commenced to eat then, both of them. They asked 
me to take back the dishes, and I did so. They then went 
down the lane, and up the road towards Jennerville. That is 
the last I saw of them. — Question. Do you recollect, so that 
you can give any description of these men? — Answer. The 
comrade had on a cap, and I saw some kind of a button up 
here on his shirt (at the neck). I saw he had some kind of 
gaiter shoes on. I noticed the gum and the straps to pull 
them on with. The doctor had a straw hat on. 

Elisabeth J. Pyle. — I am the wife of Francis M. Pyle, of 
West Grove. I saw the prisoner at the bar, with another man, 
in our orchard on the forenoon of Monday, the 30th day of last 
June. Mr. Udderzook afterwards came to the house and asked 
me if he could have something to eat for himself and comrade. 
I told him that he could. He said they had come out on a 
day's excursion. He wore a suit of dark blue, a high crown 
straw hat with the rim turned up. He had on a white collar 
and a long blue necktie, the ends hanging down upon the 
bosom, but not far enough to hide his shirt studs. — Cross- 
examination. I know it was on Monday because it was 
wash-day, and I had been to church the day before. I have 
a distinct recollection of that. I am certain Udderzook had 
on a suit of dark blue clothes and a blue necktie. He had 



282 HOMICIDE. 

three small shirt studs. They looked like a clear white stone 
in a gold setting. They were small and pretty. I was stand- 
ing very close to him and observed his appearance. I remem- 
ber this positively. No one has since spoken to me of this, 
or how he was dressed. Aly husband that day told me w^ho 
Udderzook was. 

David R. Miillin, recalled. — I have said that I reside in 
Cooperstown, and that A. C. Wilson once boarded with me. 
[A piece of wood, with ratchet end, handed to witness.] This 
is part of a screw-driver model that Wilson made while he 
was at my house. It is of pine wood and cut out with his 
knife. This and one other piece of the screw-driver was taken 
out from the model when he had completed it, and Abram 
Good, who is a mechanic, made some smoother pieces, which 
were put into the screw-driver in the place of these. Wilson 
took the model away with him, but these two pieces he placed 
upon my porch and left them there when he went away. I 
saw him at work upon it, and saw him put it together when 
completed. 

John J. Chambers. — I reside in West Grove, Pennsylvania, 
and am agent for the Baltimore Central Railroad Company. 
A person called at my office, on or about the 30th of June last, 
and asked me the road to Jenner\dlle. It was immediately 
after the 9.30 morning train had arrived from Philadelphia. A 
valise was left there, and it remained several days. 

Samuel C. Jeiferis. — I reside in Lancaster City, having moved 
there on the 17th of last month. Prior to that time I lived at 
Jennervalle, Avhere I kept a hotel. The prisoner at the bar 
came to my house in Jennerville, accompanied by another man, 
arriving at about nine o'clock in the evening of the 30th of 
June last. He asked for supper; I told him it was too late, 
but I gave them a lunch. I told him we were about to retire, 
and if they wished to remain all night, I would then show them 
to their rooms; that they could stay if they wished. Udder- 
zook paid for the lunch, and said he would consult with his 
friend and tell me in a moment whether they would remain or 
not. He soon came back and said they would stay. I showed 
them up to a room fronting the south, in the second story. 
A drover by the name of Harvey Townley occupied the 



HOMICIDE. 283 

adjoining room. The next morning I saw Mr. Udderzook 
when he came down-stairs. I asked him if his friend was not 
coming down to breakfast, or if he was ready for breakfast. He 
told me his friend was indisposed and would not come down. 
At breakfast Mr. Townley, Mr. Udderzook, and myself were 
the only persons at the table. After breakfast, Mr. Udderzook 
carried his friend's breakfast up to him in his room. He in- 
quired about a team, and I referred him to Mr. Edwin Patchell 
as having a horse and buggy which he could probably get. 
He told me, as I left him then, that he would be back for his 
friend by dinner-time. I did not see him go away. He re- 
turned about six o'clock in the afternoon. This was the even- 
ing of the 1st day of July. He had a horse and buggy with 
him — falling top wagon. It was a bay horse. I noticed a 
lap blanket folded and lying on the seat. He watered his 
horse and held some conversation with his friend, the man 
who was at my house. This man was on the porch. They 
went to one side and held some conversation, which I did not 
hear or pay any attention to. As they separated, I heard 
Udderzook say to him that he was going to see his mother. 
He said he would be back in half an hour, and he then drove 
down the road in the direction of his mother's. He returned 
in about half an hour afterwards. I saw the man who came 
with him, at about two o'clock that afternoon for the first time 
that day. I had been away from home and returned at about 
two o'clock. The evening before when they arrived I handed 
them their lunch and they ate it while sitting on the porch. 
I did not observe the man particularly that evening. When 
I came home at about two o'clock, I went into the dining- 
room, which was darkened, and saw a man lying on the lounge. 
The window-shutters were closed. About four o'clock I was 
passing the front of the house, this man was on the porch and 
called me to him. We had some conversation there for about 
half an hour. We were at the table together at supper. Har- 
vey Townley and my son George were at the table with us. 
I saw more or less of him from four o'clock until he left with 
Mr. Udderzook. It was in the neighborhood of seven o'clock 
when he left in the carriage with Mr. Udderzook. When they 
drove ofif they went in the direction of Cochransville. Mr. 



284 HOMICIDE. 

Udderzook was dressed in a suit of dark clothes and a straw 
hat. The other man was about five feet eight or nine inches, 
with dark hair and dark mustache. He was rather a fine- 
looking man, stood erect, and I would suppose him to be 
in the neighborhood of forty years of age. My judgment 
would be that he would weigh about one hundred and seventy- 
five or one hundred and eighty pounds. They came on Mon- 
day and went away on Tuesday evening. [Photograph handed 
to vdtness.] The man standing in this picture resembles the 
man who was with Udderzook. 

Mrs. Margaret Jefferis. — I am the wife of Samuel C. Jefferis, 
the preceding witness. I saw the prisoner at the bar, in Jen- 
nerville, on the 30th day of June last, at the time when he 
asked my husband for supper. I saw Mr. Udderzook at the 
breakfast-table the next morning, and waited on him there. 
He told me he would take the other man's breakfast up to him 
in his room, and I prepared and gave it to Mr. Udderzook, who 
went out of the dining-room with it. I did not see him again 
that day. Mr. Udderzook and the other man occupied the 
same room. There was only one bed in the room. Between 
nine and ten o'clock in the forenoon, I saw the man who had 
come with Udderzook standing on our front porch, fanning 
himself. It was a warm day. I held some conversation with 
him and inquired particularly as to his health. I informed 
him that we would close the dining-room shutters and he 
could lie on our lounge there. The next I saw of him he was 
lying on the lounge in the dining-room. I had some five or 
ten minutes' conversation with him in the dining-room. He 
soon afterwards came and rapped on the kitchen door, and I 
opened it and I talked with him a little while. I next saw him 
as I was going to the cupboard in the dining-room. That was 
after eleven o'clock. He was lying down as I went into the 
dining-room. He jumped up straight and said he would pay 
any price for some liquor. 

Mr. McVeagh. — One moment! — The Court. He jumped up 
straight and said something? — Witness. He did. — The Court. 
We will not hear what he said. — Witness. He then ordered his 
dinner, and I prepared it for him. It was then about twelve 
o'clock. He ate his dinner alone. He ate quite heartily. I 



HOMICIDE. 285 

again saw him lying on the lounge, apparently asleep, at about 
two o'clock in the afternoon. I afterwards saw him sitting on 
our porch at about tea-time. I did not see him afterwards. 
He was a stout-built man, nice appearing, but rather soiled. 
He had a full face, dark side whiskers and mustache. His 
chin looked dark, as though it needed shaving. His hair was 
dark. I don't know whether black or brown. In appearance, 
I thought he was the straightest man I ever saw. He was full- 
chested. He wore no vest and no collar. As he lay upon the 
lounge I noticed that he wore shoes; cannot say what kind of 
shoes. I noticed his white stockings between his pants and 
shoes. I think I would recognize the man if I should see him 
again. [Photograph handed to witness.] The one standing 
in this picture resembles the man. I never saw this picture 
before. Mr. Udderzook was dressed in a suit of dark clothes. 
Harvey Townley. — I reside in Crawford County, Pennsylva- 
nia; am a drover and farmer. I saw the prisoner on the even- 
ing of the 30th of June last, at Mr. Jef¥eris's Hotel in Jenner- 
ville. I was lying on the dining-room lounge when Mr. Jefferis 
came in with two gentlemen, and lighting a candle said — " You 
two gentlemen wish to room together?" The prisoner here, 
replied that they did. Mr. Jefiferis showed them upstairs, and 
soon afterwards, I retired to my own room, which proved to be 
adjoining theirs. It may have been twenty minutes after they 
had gone upstairs that I went to my room. I could hear them 
talking in their room and could hear that they had not yet re- 
tired. I went to bed immediately and went to sleep. About 
midnight I was awakened by a noise in their room. I did not 
know what the noise was, unless some one was up and stirring 
about in there. I got up and lighted my candle, looked at my 
watch, and saw that it was a little after twelve o'clock. I then 
put out the light and went back to bed. They were talking in 
a low tone of voice, and I could not understand what was said. 
I then went to sleep and slept until morning. I saw the pris- 
oner at breakfast the next morning. He said his friend was un- 
well during the night, and that he had had a great deal of trou- 
ble with him for a couple of nights. After breakfast I went out 
and sat in the porch. Soon after, this gentleman (the prisoner) 
came out and sat down at the right of me, on the same bench. 
Mr. Jef¥eris came and sat down there with us. Mr. Udderzook 



286 HOMICIDE. 

asked Jefferis if he had a team that he could have to go to 
Pennington ville, and Jefferis told him he could not let him have 
his horse, as he was going away himself with it. Just then 
Mr. Wallace came across the street, and up to the porch, and 
said to Udderzook, " If William Udderzook was in this coun- 
try, I should say you were he." Mr. Udderzook said that 
was his name. Mr. Wallace then came and sat down in the 
porch and I went away. In the evening, after supper, as I 
was going over to the store, I heard a wagon rattle past, and 
looking I saw Mr. Udderzook driving up towards the hotel. 
As I came back from the store I saw Udderzook and the man 
who was with him at the hotel get into the wagon and drive 
of¥ towards the north. I had known Udderzook's mother 
and sister for a good many years, and when I learned who 
he was, I observed him. particularly. He was dressed in a 
suit of navy-blue cloth, and he wore a straw hat. I saw the 
man who was with him, at the supper-table that day. He was 
a good-looking man, pretty square shoulders, erect, dark hair, 
side whiskers and mustache. [The photograph handed to wit- 
ness.] The one standing resembles the man whom I saw with 
Udderzook. 

George C. Jefferis. — I am a son of Samuel C. Jefferis. I 
saw the prisoner at the bar on the ist day of July last, in his 
room at the hotel in Jennerville. I was sent up to call him to 
breakfast, and I knocked on his door, when he opened it and I 
then saw him. I again saw him after he came down. I saw 
the man who was there with him. I first saw this man at 
about three o'clock that afternoon, and I again saw him at the 
supper-table, and ate supper with him. He was a stout man, 
with broad shoulders, throwing his shoulders well back, high 
forehead, mustache and side whiskers. [Witness identified the 
picture of the man standing, in the photograph heretofore in- 
troduced in evidence.] 

John A. Wallace. — I reside in Jennerville. I know the pris- 
oner at the bar, have known him fifteen years or more. I 
saw him in Jennerville on the morning of the first day of July 
last. As I walked up to the tavern porch, I saw a man sitting 
there ; and as I came up to him I said, *' This is Billy Udder- 
zook, from Baltimore, if I am not mistaken." He raised his 
head and spoke in a low tone of voice, so that I did not hear 



HOMICIDE. 287 

his reply to me. That is the same man [pointing to the 
prisoner]. Mr. Townley and Mr. Jefferis were on the porch 
at the time. 

Charles Watson. — I Hved in the house of Mrs. Jane Udder- 
zook, the mother of WiUiam E. Udderzook. I know the pris- 
oner. I saw him on the evening of the ist of July, as I was 
going to my work-shop. My business is that of wagon-mak- 
ing. It was about six o'clock in the evening when I saw him. 
He was driving a bay horse harnessed to a top buggy, and 
there was a loose horse, a bay mare that belonged to Edwin 
Patchell, walking ahead of him. The mare had a saddle and 
bridle on. I was going into the gate of my house at the time. 
I noticed he had a summer lap blanket spread over his knees 
as he was driving. I saw a stranger on the porch of the hotel 
that day. I saw him as I went back and forth from my shop 
and noticed him particularly. He was rather a large-sized man, 
heavy set, and when he stood erect he was so straight he ap- 
parently leaned backwards, throwing his shoulders well back. 
He had black hair, black side whiskers and mustache. [The 
photograph heretofore introduced in evidence handed to wit- 
ness.] The person standing looks like the man I saw. 

Edwin Patchell. — I reside in Jennerville. I know the pris- 
oner at the bar. He came to my place in the morning on the 
1st day of July last, to hire a horse. My place is about fifty 
feet from the hotel. I looked at him as he came up to my 
place, and I knew him. I said, " Hallo, Billy, you are a stran- 
ger in this country." He replied, " I was sent from the hotel 
to hire a horse from you to go to Penningtonville, or this side 
of there, to Samuel Rhoades's place." He said he would give 
me $2 for the horse to go there. I told him he could have it. 
Then he asked for a carriage. I told him I had none. He 
said he had a friend at the hotel that he wanted to take to see 
Samuel Rhoades. Then he asked for saddle and bridle, and I 
loaned him my mare. He returned my mare about five o'clock 
that afternoon, and had a horse and buggy with him. I knew 
the horse. It belonged to Albert Baldwin, who lives in Pen- 
ningtonville. And half an hour later I saw him driving up 
the road past my place, going towards Cochransville. 

Annie Rhoades. — I am wife of Samuel Rhoades and sister of 
William E. Udderzook, the prisoner at the bar. I reside about 



288 HOMICIDE. 

a quarter of a mile south of Penningtonville, on the turnpike 
road. My house is near the road, and the barn a httle distance 
from the house. My brother, Wilham E. Udderzook, came to 
see me on the ist day of July last, at about noon. [Here the 
witness was completely overcome with emotion, and for several 
moments was deeply affected. Udderzook's mother, who was 
sitting immediately behind the witness, buried her face in her 
handkerchief and wept bitterly. Udderzook bowed his head 
for a moment, but quickly recovered his calmness. When the 
witness had become more composed, the examination pro- 
ceeded.] He (Udderzook) asked if Mr. Rhoades was at home. 
I told him he was at Mr. Zachariah Baldwin's, about a mile 
distant from our house. He said he had come to see Mr. 
Rhoades. I told him we would first have dinner and then go 
over to Mr. Baldwin's. He came there on horseback and he put 
up the horse in our stable. He took dinner with me and 
then we started over to see Mr. Rhoades. We conversed by 
the way. He said he had been to Philadelphia. He said he 
had not seen my mother or my sister. We found Mr. Rhoades 
out in the hay-field at Mr. Baldwin's. He was out towards 
the middle of the field. We went through a piece of woods to 
get to the field, and when we came in sight, he told me to stay 
there in the shade while he went and brought Mr. Rhoades 
up to where we were. He went to Mr. Rhoades and then I 
followed after him, and then we all came up to the shade. They 
walked along together and were talking, and I walked a little 
way distant from them. They appeared to be talking quietly, 
as if they did not want me to hear. I did not hear any of 
their conversation. They were talking some twenty minutes 
or more. Then Mr. Rhoades went back to the field and he 
(Udderzook) and I came away and walked on to Pennington- 
ville. He said he was going to Penningtonville for a horse 
and carriage. I went to a store and he went to a livery stable. 
He came round and called at the store for me, with a bay horse 
and top buggy. I got in and he drove over to my house. I 
noticed a lap blanket in the buggy. I wanted him to stay to 
supper, but he did not. He took his other horse from the 
stable and tied him to the horse harnessed to the buggy. He 
tied him with a strap to the bridle. It was a hitching-strap 
which he took from our stable for the purpose. Then he got 



HOMICIDE. 289 

into the buggy. I asked him if he would come back in the 
morning. He said, " No, this evening." He told me he had 
a friend with him at Jennerville, who was in delicate health, 
and he thought a few days in the country would do him good. 
Then he asked me if it would inconvenience us to have his 
friend at our house. I told him it would not. He started and 
drove a short distance, and then stopped and changed the sad- 
dle horse, tying it behind the buggy. I went up to him and 
said the horse would not lead that way, and advised him to 
turn it loose, and he did so. I did not see him again until 
I saw him here in the court-room. I waited that evening and 
heard several carriages. He did not fix any time when he 
would come back. Mr. Rhoades and I waited up till half-past 
eleven, at which time we heard a carriage drive past the house. 
By the sound it was going rapidly. 

Samuel W. Rhoades. — I am the husband of Mrs. Rhoades, 
who has just testified. On the ist day of July last, between one 
and two o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Udderzook came with 
my wife to a hay-field where I was then at work. I was prob- 
ably about fifty yards from the edge of the woods. He 
(Udderzook) came to where I was, and after he had said some- 
thing about its being very warm, he said he had written me a 
letter. As soon as I saw him I thought of that letter which he 
had written me. It was a suspicious letter — one that surprised 
me when I received it. I said to him I had written him in reply 
to know what he meant and had received no answer from him. 
He said: "No, I could not write any more, it had to be by 
word of mouth. However," he says, '' it is just as good now, 
and better, if anything; it is a sure thing for a thousand dollars 
apiece for us." Then he said it was warm, and we walked up 
to the shade. I asked him what it was. He says: ** Well, 
have you got a horse? " I said, " Yes." He asked, '' Have you 
a wagon that will hold three persons? " I said I could get one, 
and asked him when we would get the money. He said we 
would get five hundred apiece right away, and there was more 
money we would get afterwards; he would guarantee me a 
thousand dollars. I asked where we would get it. He said 
" Right here in Jennerville ; I have towed it right here to Jen- 
nerville." He said it was a man who had been drinking, and 
who was spending his money for no good. He said he had had 



290 HOMICIDE. 

the ''poker" about three times since he had been with him; 
that the man had about a thousand dollars with him, of that he 
was pretty certain. He wanted me to harness my horse and 
go with him at once to Jenner\'ille, and get this man and take 
him to the woods and give him a little laudanum and get him to 
sleep, and then take his money. I said to him that I could not 
do that. I told him, if he commenced that he would ruin him- 
self and his whole family. He said there was not a bit of dan- 
ger; he had had this man in New York or Newark, I cannot 
say certain which, and in Philadelphia, " and," he says, '' I 
would not go to all that trouble unless I knew what I was 
doing." I told him that nobody knew what they were doing 
when they commenced that kind of business; that he would 
have to give up the idea. He said: "I will not go home 
till I get it." He said that he would do all the stealing. He 
spoke as though he wanted me to hide the money. He said 
that he had been to a great deal of trouble and expense, and 
that he would do it himself and bury the money. I told him 
not to do so. I said to him, " I must go to my work," and 
asked him to stay a day or two and I would talk with him 
in the evening, and again in the morning. He said the man 
would not stay in Jennerville by himself. If he (Udderzook) 
stayed, he would have to bring the man to my place. He 
asked if he might do so, and I said yes. He then asked me 
for a horse and buggy^ to bring him with. I told him I could 
not give him my horse, as it was at Napoleon Warner's. I 
told him there was a livery stable in Penningtonville where I 
thought he could get a team. He said the man w:as very sick 
and he thought he w^ould die last night, or the other night. 
He said that he had been up with him dosing him with whis- 
key. He said that he believed the man would die, and asked: 
" How w^ould it be with you and Annie," — ^that is my wife — " if 
he should happen to die at your house? Would you allow me 
to put him away and say nothing ab9ut it? " " No," I said, " if 
a stranger was to die at my place, there would have to be a cor- 
oner's inquest held." He said there was nobody to look after 
this man; that he had been lost for a long time and every- 
body thought he was dead. He had no friends to look after 
him, or who cared for him. I said to him, it made no dlfifer- 
ence. If a stranger should die there, there would have to be an 



HOMICIDE. 291 

inquest. He dropped his head down, and his cheek appeared 
to be getting red. He said it might lead to some suspicion. I 
told him I could not help that, I could not have anything of 
that kind. He said, "Well, what then?" I told him I could 
say nothing more until I saw the man. He left me then, going 
in the direction of Penningtonville. I did not see him again 
until I saw him here. I own a leather hitching-strap, which I 
found at Mr. Baldwin's livery stable a few days after Udder- 
zook had taken it from my stable. [A leather strap handed 
to and identified by witness as his hitching-strap.] I know 
William E. Udderzook's handwriting. [Letter handed to wit- 
ness, dated on the envelope, December i6th, and post-marked 
Baltimore. No date to the letter itself.] I received that letter 
between the i6th and 20th of December, 1872. It is the letter 
I spoke of in my testimony. 

The following is the letter referred to: 

Friend Sam: — I have, something of much interest that I wish to 
communicate to you. // must be done by word of mouth, please 
don't let any one know of our communications but as soon as you 
read this, mount your horse and come to Oxford take the morning 
train to Baltimore when you arrive in Baltimore inquire for Mr. 
Duker & Brother plaining & saw mill. This mill is right a cross the 
street from where you get out of the cars. I am employed in said 
mill and am there every day. you will arrive at one O'clock you 
MUST take the next train for Oxford which is at half past two that 
will give us one hour and a half which will be sufficient, for us to 
arrange one of the finest planes that you have heard of. there is a 
COOL one thousand dollars in it and there is nothing to prevent us 
from getting it this is without a doubt, do not buy your ticket at 
Oxford but pay for your fair on the cars, do not let a sole know 
where you go. I cannot explane further till I see you, do 7iot fail 
to come drop every thing at once, you can make the trip in a few 
hours. I have no person else in confidence with me and now pro- 
pose to tak you. you will find that it is the best days work that you 
ever did. I will give you the full explanation when I see you (bring 
this letter with you) your expencis will be only four Dollars or a 
little less. 

Very Respt Yours 

Wm. E. Udderzook.* 
(Be firm, Be true.) 

♦The letter is written on a commercial note sheet and is signed on the third page On the 
fourth page, near the bottom, evidently written after the letter was folded, are the words : 
"If you decline to come, write me a line to No. 167 Conway Street, Baltimore, Md." 



292 HOMICIDE. 

The cross-examination of Rhoades was conducted at great 
length, without eliciting any important fact, other than an ad- 
mission that he had suspected Udderzook might be plotting 
against him, but his suspicions took no definite form. The 
whole of Rhoades's direct testimony was rigidly cross-ques- 
tioned, without shaking it in the least degree. He was then 
asked by the Commonwealth's Attorney if he ever showed the 
letter which he received from Udderzook to any person. Pris- 
oner's counsel objected. Objection overruled, and exception 
reserved by the defense. Witness answered that he showed it 
the same day that he received it to Mrs. Annie E. Skelton, who 
was at that time keeping house for him; also, on the same day, 
he showed it to Gainer P. Moore, and to Mrs. Elizabeth Udder- 
zook, a widow of the brother of William E. Udderzook. He 
showed his answer to the letter to Mrs. Skelton. Witness was 
asked if he told his conversation with Udderzook, which he 
held with him at the hay-field, to any person. Prisoner's 
counsel asked the Court if he thought this admissible against 
the prisoner, llie Court said it was admissible to show 
whether or not, if there was a scheme, the witness was a party 
to it. That if the witness was a party to the crime, his testi- 
mony should be received with great caution, and should 
not be relied upon except in so far as it is corroborated by 
other circumstances. If he is not to be treated as a party then 
he stands as any other witness. Witness then said that he told 
the conversation, first to Albert Baldwin, on the 2d day of 
July, and to Zachariah Baldwin on the morning of the 3d of 
July, when he returned to his^ work ; that he worked all that 
day and in the evening of the same day. After going home he 
told it to Gainer P. Moore. He also spoke of it to several 
other persons, whose names he mentioned. The Court then 
asked, when was the first time the witness heard of the man's 
body being found. Witness answered: The first time I heard 
of the body being found was at about five o'clock in the after- 
noon of Friday, the nth day of July. I went to the woods 
with Gainer Moore, to the place where the body lay, and on 
putting a shovel down by its side, I came to and dug up a 
bloody, dirty shirt. I placed a shovel under the head, and 
raised it up. Just then we heard a buggy passing on the pike 



HOMICIDE. 293 

road, and we went out to it. We got into the wagon and went 
back to Gainer Moore's house, and I left Gainer there. 

Annie Skelton identified the Udderzook letter as the one 
Rhoades showed her on the day he received it by mail. She 
also testified to having read an answer to it, written by Rhoades. 
— Mrs. Elizabeth Udderzook, widow of the brother of William 
E. Udderzook, testified that Rhoades showed her the letter the 
latter part of April. — Gainer P. Moore testified that Rhoades 
showed him the letter in the early part of last winter. He also 
testified to having been told by Rhoades about the conversation 
between Udderzook and Rhoades, which took place in Bald- 
win's hay-field. The witness was told of this conversation on 
the evening of July 3d. — Albert Baldwin, keeper of the livery 
stable at Penningtonville, testified that Rhoades told him of 
the conversation on Wednesday evening, July 2d. — Zachariah 
Baldwin testified that he saw the prisoner in his hay-field on 
the 1st day of July, and saw him with Rhoades. On the morn- 
ing of the 3d of July, Rhoades told witness of the conversation. 
— Samuel Slocum testified that on the 6th of July, Rhoades 
told him of the conversation, and also showed him the letter 
from Udderzook. 

Albert Baldwin, recalled. — I saw the prisoner at my livery 
stable on the ist day of July, 1873. He hired a team of me to 
go to Cochransville. He was to be back between six and 
seven o'clock. I furnished him two blankets. One was a 
light summer horse cover, and the other was a linen lap cover. 
He paid me $2 for the team, and then got in and drove ofif. 
I retired to bed about nine o'clock that night. Udderzook 
had not returned when I went to bed. 

Gassoway Peters. — I was employed at the livery stable of 
Mr. Baldwin in Penningtonville last July. I saw the prisoner 
on the 1st day of July last. I met him on the road between 
Gilfillan's tan-yard and Baer's Woods. He was driving a horse 
of Mr. Baldwin's harnessed to a buggy. There was a horse 
with saddle and bridle on, ahead of him. I next saw him that 
night when he returned the horse and buggy to the stable. It 
was then twenty minutes to twelve o'clock. I unlocked the 
stable and led the horse in, and unharnessed him in there. 
Udderzook stood by me, and I said to him, " You did not get 



294 HOMICIDE. 

in as soon as you expected." He said, "When a man gets 
out among the women, he does not know when he will get in." 
I noticed the wagon was broken, and asked him how he did it, 
and he said he did not know how it got broken. The dasher 
was broken at the hand-hold, and the iron frame bent over 
towards the horse. Two of the hind bows in the buggy-top 
were broken, and two rivets were broken from the bows at the 
ends where the bows are fastened to the seat, so that the bows 
were swinging loose. This was on the left-hand side. I asked 
him to pay for overtime, and he said he would see Baldwin 
in the morning. He went away, and I locked the stable and 
went to bed. The next morning I was examining the wagon, 
and I found a finger ring and a collar button lying between 
the cushions, near the front edge, on the seat. They lay be- 
tween the creases of the cushions, and were in sight. [The 
ring heretofore introduced in evidence was shown to and iden- 
tified by the witness as the one he found in the buggy.] I 
gave the ring to Mr. Baldwin that morning. [The collar but- 
ton heretofore introduced in evidence was shown to and identi- 
fied by the witness.] I kept the collar button until I gave it 
to the coroner's jury. 

Jane Udderzook, the aged mother of the prisoner, was next 
called to identify the handwriting of her son, WilHam E. Udder- 
zook. She had corresponded with him for years past — since 
he was a boy — and was able to recognize his handwriting when 
she saw it. Several letters were handed her, with the request 
that she would look at the signatures and say what was her best 
judgment as to whether it was his handwriting or not. She 
had not her glasses with her, and her eyes were ' suflfused with 
tears so that she could not answer definitely. A pair of glasses 
were handed her, which, she said, did not suit her very well. 
Of a letter dated Baltimore, October 30th, 1871, addressed to 
his mother, and signed William E. Udderzook, 167 Conway 
Street, she said, " It is Hkely it is his writing." Of a letter 
dated Baltimore, November i6th, 1871, directed to Mr. and 
Mrs. Mullin, she saM, " It looks like his writing." Of a letter 
dated Baltimore, October 28th, 1871, addressed to Mrs. 
Mullin, she said, " I think that is the same handwriting." The 
letter to Rhoades was handed to the witness, when Mr. 



HOMICIDE. 295 

McVeagh, the prisoner's counsel, remarked, " I think these 
letters are so proven they will have to go to the jury." The 
letters were then offered in evidence by the Commonwealth. 

Gassoway Peters, recalled. — I noticed Udderzook's appear- 
ance when he brought the horse back that night. I saw that 
one leg of his pantaloons was dirty. He wore dark clothing. 
There were no blankets with the buggy when he returned it. 

John Hurley. — I reside in West Fallowfield township. It is 
about one field from my house to Baer's Woods. My wife 
awakened me on the night of the ist of July, and I heard a 
noise of a man hallooing. I did not look to see what time it 
was, but think it was between ten and eleven o'clock. I got 
out of bed and went to the window, and I heard three loud 
calls after I got to the window — a kind of hallooing. Then it 
was still for about two minutes, and then I heard what sounded 
like loud and wicked scolding. One of them hallooed " Oh! " 
not nearly so loud as the other sounds. I was at the window 
listening, some twenty minutes or so. I heard a sound like 
a horse and wagon. I saw nothing. I could tell by the sound 
from what direction it came. It came from Baer's Woods. 
Towards daylight I noticed a light burning in the woods. 

Dr. John J. Gibson. — I reside in Cochransville. On the 
morning of the second day of July, 1873, I observed smoke 
arising from about the centre of Baer's Woods. I was where 
I could plainly see full two-thirds of the top of the woodland, 
and was about a mile and three-quarters distant from the 
woods. It was about half-past five o'clock in the morning. 

James Robinson. — I am a millwright, and in the early part 
of July in this year I was repairing a mill near Cochransville. 
On the morning of the 2d of July, at about half-past four 
o'clock, I noticed smoke ascending from Baer's Woods. The 
smoke seemed to come from the centre of the woods. I was 
about a mile and a half distant when I first saw it, and as I was 
going in that direction I approached to within about three- 
quarters of a mile of it. It attracted my attention consider- 
ably, and I stopped and looked at it. It was a heavy body of 
smoke, and showed very plainly. I continued to notice it until 
I lost sight of it in the hollow, as I turned ofl from the pike 
to go down to the mill. 



296 HOMICIDE. 

Samuel Robinson. — On the morning of the second day of 
July last I saw smoke rising from near the centre of Baer's 
Woods. It was between half-past four and five o'clock. On 
the Sunday following after the body was discovered, I was in 
the woods, and found a few burned fragments of clothing at a 
spot where there had been a fire. I have these charred frag- 
ments with me. [Opening package containing pieces of cloth.] 
Here is part of them. It was ten days or more after I saw the 
fire, when I went into the woods. 

Albert Baldwin, recalled. — I examined the buggy next morn- 
ing after Udderzook had returned it to my stable. The rivets 
of the bows on the left side were broken so that the bows 
would spring backward and forward. The iron of the dash was 
broken off on the left side, at about four inches from the top. 
The whole dash was bent over forward. The oil-cloth, which 
had been tacked to the floor of the buggy, was torn or': and 
missing. Only portions of it remained that were held round 
the edges by the tacks. Afterwards, on the 4th, I noticed 
what appeared to be blood-stains upon the bottom of the floor 
of the wagon. It appeared to have run through a crack in 
the floor. I searched the wagon to ascertain if there were any 
blood-stains, because of what Rhoades told about his conver- 
sation in the hay-field with Udderzook. I made out a bill 
against Udderzook and gave it to Mr. Patchell to collect. The 
bill was for the missing blankets, for breaking the wagon, and 
for overtime. [A paper handed to witness, which he identified 
as the bill.] The bill is made out for $12.75. ^ received $9 
through Mr. Patchell. 

Edwin Patchell, recalled. — Mr. Baldwin" gave me a bill to 
collect against William E. Udderzook, on the evening of the 
second day of July. I found Udderzook at his mother's house, 
and presented him the bill. I said to him, " Here is a bill that 
Baldwin has made out against you for breaking his wagon and 
losing his blankets." He stood for a second or two and then 
said, " Yes, I lost the blankets, but I did not break his wagon." 
Then he said, "Yes, I broke one small iron in front. I do 
not feel willing to pay for the wagon, but the blankets I will 
pay for." He looked at the bill, and handed me $9, all in $1 
notes. He asked me for a receipt, and I said to him. it was 



HOMICIDE. 297 

not necessary, as Baldwin could give him a receipt when he 
got the money. He said, " I will not be here longer than to- 
morrow morning, but Baldwin can give it to mother." He 
kept the bill. 

Joseph Wilson. — I reside in Cochransville ; am clerk of the 
hotel there. The prisoner at the bar called at the hotel in 
Cochransville, at about seven o'clock in the morning of the 
second day of July last, and asked for breakfast. I imme- 
diately ordered breakfast for him, and after he had finished, he 
paid his bill and went away. 

Mrs. Lydia Bowman. — I saw the prisoner on the morning 
of the second day of July last, in the hotel in Cochransville. I 
waited on him at his breakfast. I noticed his clothing. He 
wore his coat buttoned tightly across his breast. I noticed 
then his pantaloons were dusty, as though dust had settled on 
them after they had been wet. As he passed out of the room 
I noticed his pantaloons were turned up at the bottoms. His 
hair seemed to be very much rumpled, as though he had been 
lying down and had not combed it afterwards. 

Samuel C. Jefferis, recalled. — I saw Udderzook the next 
morning after he left my hotel in Jennerville. I met him about 
two and a half miles north of my house, on the road leading 
from Cochransville. He was going towards Jennerville. After 
saying good morning, I asked him what he had done with 
his partner. He told me he had left him at Parkesburg; that 
he (Udderzook) was going down to see his mother, and then 
home. He was traveling on foot. It was then between eight 
and nine o'clock in the morning. It was a warm morning. — 
Cross-examination. His coat was off and I think he was carry- 
ing it on his shoulder. I noticed the lower part of his panta- 
loons were foxy — dusty. 

Robert C. Kelton. — I am station agent at Penn Station, on 
the P. & B. C. R. R. I know William E. Udderzook. He was 
at my station in the evening of the second day of July last, and 
purchased a ticket from me to go on the six o'clock train. He 
went on the train towards Philadelphia. I saw him again in 
about one hour afterwards. He came back on the seven o'clock 
train. He had no baggage with him when he first came. 
When he came back he had a valise. I spoke to him and said, 



298 HOMICIDE. 

" Billy, you didn't stay long." He answered me saying he 
did not intend to. He went towards Joseph Miller's, where 
his mother lives. I next saw him on the morning of the 3d of 
July. He got no ticket from me on that morning, but he got 
on board the train going to Baltimore. He had no baggage 
with him, unless it was a small bundle under his arm. 

Henry Painter. — I reside in West Chester. I visited the 
house of Mr. Joseph MiUer on the 27th day of July, and in- 
quired for Mrs. Jane Udderzook. She gave me a valise con- 
taining a box of paper collars. [The valise heretofore intro- 
duced in evidence exhibited to and identified by the witness 
as the valise he obtained from Mrs. Udderzook.] — Cross-exami- 
nation. I went to the house at the instance of Mr. Wanger, 
the District Attorney. I did not search the premises at that 
time. I did subsequently. 

Thomas Carroll. — I reside in Baltimore. Am a detective 
officer. On the 15th of July last, Sheriff Gill came to our office 
in Baltimore, and I went with him over to Otto Duker's plan- 
ing-mill, and there found and arrested William E. Udderzook. 
I took him into a room in the presence of Deputy Marshal 
Frey, Chief Detective Crone, Sheriff Gill, and myself. He 
stated that he went up to Chester County, Pennsylvania, to 
see his mother; that he hired a horse, and went to see his sis- 
ter and brother-in-law. — Prisoner's Counsel. Was the statement 
he made entirely voluntary? — Witness. Yes, sir. He said that 
the horse was a false one, and he concluded to hire a horse and 
buggy. He then started back to take the horse he had first 
hired, home to its owner. He tried to lead him, and he would 
not lead. He then tied him to his carriage horse, but he would 
not go. He then untied him and started him on the road by 
himself. The horse bolted off to one side of the road, so that 
he had to get out of the wagon and turn him back to the main 
road again. He took the horse back to where he belonged, 
and then took the wagon to return it to the parties from whom 
he had hired it. In going along the road a man came out and 
asked him to take him in the wagon. He did so, and carried 
him to Cochransville, and there put him out. He said he did 
not know who the man was, he was a stranger. Marshal Frey, 
Sheriff Gill, and Mr. Crone then left the room, and I was left 



HOMICIDE. 299 

alone with the prisoner. The prisoner then made the remark 
to me: "This looks bad, doesn't it?" I said to him he had 
better find some one who saw him let the man out of the buggy, 
and our conversation ceased until I delivered him to Sheriff 
Gill at the depot. In the cars at the depot, he asked me if I 
thought he would get out of it. I told him I did not know 
what evidence the State would be able to produce against him. 
— Cross-examination. There was no conversation at the plan- 
ing-mill about the offense, nor on the way to the office. — Mar- 
shal Jacob Frey. On my arrival at my office, about the middle 
of July last, I was informed of the arrest of William E. Udder- 
zook, and went into the detectives' office and saw him there 
with Sheriff Gill and Detectives Crone and Carroll. I shook 
hands with Udderzook, having been acquainted with him for- 
merly, and commenced a conversation with him by asking him 
if he had not been connected with the police force of Balti- 
more. He said he had. Conversation drifted upon the subject 
of this murder. He said his people lived in that part of the 
country, and he had usually gone there to visit them during 
the holidays; and as 4th of July was coming on, he thought 
he would go a day before and spend the Fourth with them. 
[Witness then related Udderzook's statements in substantially 
the same manner as did the preceding witness.] Udder- 
zook further said that when he had returned to Jennerville, at 
the place where he had hired the saddle-horse, a gentleman 
there met him and asked him to take him in his buggy to 
Cochransville. The gentleman got in and he drove to Coch- 
ransville, when the man got out, and he immediately lost sight 
of him. He said he did not ask the man his name, nor where 
he belonged, nor where he had come from. It was not the 
first time, he said, that he had seen this man. He first met 
him in the cars going from Philadelphia to Jennerville, and 
sat by his side. He said the gentleman appeared to be sick. 
He judged that from the fact that he laid his hands and arms 
across the back of the seat in front of him, and laid his head 
on his hands; and the gentleman had asked him for a glass 
of water, which he gave him; and also to take the fare ticket 
to give to the conductor. Satisfying myself that Udderzook 
was the man that the requisition called for, I told him tliat 



300 HOMICIDE. 

we would have to deliver him to Sheriff Gill, who had a requi- 
sition for him, and that he would have to be locked up until 
the Sheriff could leave with him. He asked permission to go 
home and change his clothes. I told him I could not grant 
that, but would send an officer to his house to tell his wife 
to send him anything he would want; and that his wife could 
visit him. I then sent him to the station-house, where he was 
locked up. 

William C. Crone. — I reside in Baltimore; am a detective. 
[This witness corroborated, in detail, the testimony of the pre- 
ceding witnesses relative to the arrest and statements of Udder- 
zook.] I then ordered his person to be searched. In search- 
ing him we found a bill for the hire of a horse and buggy, and 
for the loss of blankets. I delivered the bill to Sheriff Gill. 
[The bill of Mr. Baldwin, heretofore introduced in evidence, 
was shown to and recognized by witness as the bill found on 
Udderzook's person.] I afterwards went to the station-house 
with Udderzook's wife, and he gave her what money he had 
in his pockets; it was his last week's salary, he stated. 

David Gill. — I am sheriff of this (Chester) county. I re- 
ceived a requisition on the 14th of July, and went to Baltimore 
that night, and was at the detectives' office the next morning. 
[This witness related the same account as the previous wit- 
nesses, of the arrest of Udderzook, and of what he said of 
meeting the man whom he took into the buggy and drove to 
Cochransville.] On the cars, coming up from Baltimore, 
Udderzook told the witness that, after he had got acquainted 
with the man whom he met for the first time on the cars, he 
got off that train at West Grove Station, and walked from there 
to Jennerville. 

George Robinson visited Baer's Woods on the nth day of 
July, and at the place where the fire had been, which was near 
the centre of the woods, he found a brass, riveted button, such 
as he had seen upon pantaloons. — James M. Crosson was in 
the woods on the 13th of July; saw where the fire had been, 
and in searching the spot found an elastic button and a riveted 
button. He saw nearly a dozen other buttons and one buckle 
which had been found among the ashes where the fire was. 
He saw what appeared to be pieces of charred clothing which 
were found there. 



HOMICIDE. 301 

Hugh Rambo, Esq., recalled. — Examined the buggy for blood- 
stains a few days after the body was found. He found some 
spots underneath the floor, by a crack, which he thought he 
would have recognized as blood-stains, if he had not heard of 
the alleged murder. He cut off some of them with a knife and 
placed them in a paper, which he subsequently delivered to 
Dr. Howard. 

Prof. E. Lloyd Howard, recalled. — District Attorney Wanger 
called my attention to a wagon which I examined, while in 
Penningtonville, on the i8th day of July last. I paid special 
attention to the floor of the buggy and other parts of it, upon 
which I found some red stains, several of which I cut off with 
my penknife for subsequent examination; and upon a careful 
examination I found they were blood-stains. Most of those 
pieces on which the stains were most prominent I destroyed 
in the process of examination. I have several here. These 
stains I found upon the floor of the buggy, upon the under 
surface of the floor, immediately below a crack between two 
of the boards in the floor of the buggy, at about the centre of 
the floor, and upon the edges of the boards at the crack or 
space between them. I examined them with sufficient care 
to thoroughly satisfy myself that they were blood-stains. I 
made special examination to determine if they were stains of 
human blood, but on account of the length of time which had 
elapsed since the blood had remained there, I could not decide. 
That is, I could not form such an opinion as I would be willing 
to give as testimony. Comparing them with pieces of wood 
stained with my own blood, the results were identical. I also 
received from Esquire Rarribo some pieces of wood stained 
with blood. — Cross-examined. This examination was micro- 
scopical. It was analytical — both chemical and microscopical. 
I formed my judgment from the agreement in all the experi- 
ments or investigations. 

The Commonwealth here closed. 

Mr. McVeagh, addressing the Court, said: 

In view of the fact that some of the witnesses in Baltimore have 
not complied with our request to come up here, owing to there 
being an election which was held there yesterday, we desire leave to 
retire for a few minutes for consultation with the prisoner, as to the 
matter of arranging the testimony. 



302 HOMICIDE. 

Leave was granted by the Court, who said the sheriff must 
accompany the prisoner. Mr. McVeagh and Mr. Perdue, of 
the prisoner's counsel, together with the prisoner and his wife, 
and Sheriff Gill, retired to an adjoining room. Mr. Whitney, 
who had taken no part in the conduct of the defense since the 
introduction of the testimony of the Newark witnesses, re- 
mained in the court-room. After some minutes spent in con- 
sultation the parties reappeared in Court, when Mr. McVeagh 
said: 

May it please your Honors : Owing to the fragmentary manner in 
which we will be compelled to introduce our proof this afternoon, 
in consequence of the absence of various witnesses, it is thought 
hardly worth while to present any formal opening statement. These 
witnesses live out of the State, and, of course, are not amenable to 
process; and the prisoner is not in such circumstances as will admit 
of his purchasing their attendance. All we can do is to have those 
persons who are here come upon the stand and tell their story in 
their own way. We will call Mrs. Goss and ask her the circum- 
stances attending the death, as she supposed, of her husband. We 
will call in other members of the family who can throw light on this 
matter, and wherever the circumstances surrounding this cause enable 
us to do so, we will endeavor to meet the testimony that has been 
adduced. When that is heard, when this testimony is given, if the 
witnesses of whom I have spoken are not here, we will have to ask 
your Honors to favor us with an adjournment until to-morrow. The 
excuse made by these witnesses for their non-appearance is that there 
is an election of an exciting character being held in the State of 
Maryland to-day, and those upon whom we rely have declared their 
inability to be here till the election is over. 

Mrs. Eliza W. Goss, sworn and examined. — I was the wife 
of Winfield Scott Goss. In the month of February, 1872, I 
was living at No. 314 North Eutaw Street, Baltimore. At 
that time my husband was not engaged in any business in par- 
ticular, but he was working for himself, on the York Road, at 
gilding, and working in a substitute for india-rubber. We had 
been boarding just opposite the place where he was efigaged, 
at the house of Mr. Engel, from July until November, and then 
I went home to my mother's, where I was at the time of the 
burning. My husband was boarding there with me. I last 
saw my husband alive on Friday, at noon, the 2d day of Feb- 
ruary, 1872. I first heard of the burning about half-past nine 
o'clock, Friday night. When I first heard of the fire I did not 



HOMICIDE. 303 

know that my husband was supposed to have been burned. I 
first heard of that at about eleven o'clock the same night. Mr. 
Louis Engel gave me that information. He said he came at 
the instance of Mr. Udderzook. Mr. Udderzook came himself 
at about eleven o'clock. The coroner's inquest was held the 
next day. The remains reached my house at about six o'clock 
Saturday evening. I saw them and recognized them as the re- 
mains of my husband. They remained until Monday, at one 
o'clock. I saw them two or three times during the interval. 
I accompanied the remains to Baltimore Cemetery, where they 
were placed in a public vault. They remained there until the 
following Thursday, when they were put in the ground. I was 
present. Since the 2d day of February, 1872, I have not heard 
from my husband, have not received any communication from 
him, directly or indirectly. I had been married nine years on 
the 26th of last November. When the remains were taken to 
the Baltimore Cemetery, it was a public funeral. [Handing 
witness a photograph not before shown any witness.] It is a 
picture of Mr. Goss, taken six or seven years ago. There was 
no scar upon my husband's forehead. His eyes were dark 
blue. [Handing witness the ring heretofore introduced in evi- 
dence by the Commonwealth.] I have seen this ring before. 
Mr. Perdue showed it to me. I have examined it. I do not 
believe it is my husband's ring. From my recollection of my 
husband's ring, where that one has a beading in the centre, his 
ring was in regular cuts all around — in creases, grooves. Then 
there is a smooth appearance around the setting, on the top 
of that ring, which I do not think my husband's ring could 
have had, as he only had it and wore it about eighteen months, 
and that ring has a worn appearance to me. His ring had a 
similar stone, only I cannot describe any marks on the stone 
at all. I know it was a dark green setting, but I did not know 
at all, until after this trouble, that his ring was what they call 
a blood-stone ring. I did not know what a blood-stone ring 
was. — Cross-examined by Mr. Hayes. I was able to recognize 
the remains by the form of the head, and size of the body, 
and form of the neck — fullness of the neck. Tliat was all there 
was for me to recognize. — The Court. Was there at that time 
any -question about it that called for examination?' — Witness. 



304 HOMICIDE. 

No, sir. — The Court, You had no occasion, at that time, to 
think whether they were or were not your husband's remains? 
— Witness. No, sir, I had not. — Mr. Hayes. Please give us 
a description of your husband, as you recollect him. — Witness. 
Well, he had dark brown hair, very clear, smooth skin, dark 
blue eyes; he wore a heavy mustache and goatee at the time 
of his death. He was stout built. His height I cannot say. — 
Witness further testified: When I saw the remains they lay in 
a coffin and were covered with a sheet. I uncovered them. 
The whole body was of a brownish color. I could not see 
the teeth, as the lips were closed. The eyes were closed also. 
The hair was burned off, except a small portion on the back 
of the neck. — Mr. Hayes. I was about to show the witness a 
letter which, unfortunately, I do not have at hand, but may 
have to night. It may be interesting to her to see. I would 
ask her — do you know Miss Eliza Burke? — Witness. I do. — 
Question. Where does Miss Eliza Burke live?^ — Answer. At 
Mr. Udderzook's. She is his servant. — Question. That is a 
picture of whom? [Handing witness a photograph.] — Answer. 
It is a picture of A. Campbell Goss, a brother of my husband. 
[The letter of which the Commonwealth's Attorney spoke as 
being one that might interest the witness to see, but which was 
not then at hand, is a remarkable document. This letter was 
addressed to Alexander C. Wilson, ^2p Mulberry Street, New- 
ark, New Jersey, and arrived at its destination by due course 
of mail, but not until after W. S. Goss, alias Wilson, had left 
there to meet Udderzook in Philadelphia. The letter was found 
at the above-mentioned address, the boarding-house of Mrs. 
Toombes, early in the investigation of this case, by parties in 
the interest of the insurance companies. The letter is post- 
marked Baltimore, Md., July ist, 7 P. M., and the address upon 
the envelope was found to be, unmistakably, in the handwriting 
of A. Campbell Goss, the brother of W. S. Goss, alias A. C. 
Wilson, and brother-in-law of Mrs. Goss, the witness. Upon 
opening the letter it was found to be written in a hand evidently 
seeking disguise, and was signed, Miss Eliza Burke, Conway 
Street. It was easily ascertained that Miss Eliza Burke, as 
Mrs. Goss testifies, supra, was a servant in Udderzook's family 
— an ignorant sewing-woman, who had been in their employ 



HOMICIDE. 305 

some time. Her name was used by Campbell Goss as his nom 
de plume while in correspondence with his brother, W. S. Goss, 
and during their conduct of the conspiracy to defraud the in- 
surance companies. Notwithstanding the attempt at disguise, 
upon being compared with that of Campbell Goss, the writing 
is shown to be the same. 
The following is the letter: 

Mr. Wilson — I wrote to. you more than 2 weeks ago, and asked 
you to send me word whether you would meet U in Philadelphia or 
not and to direct to U in my care Conway street, the old house. I am 
very anxious to hear from you, and am waiting patiently. If you 
will meet him, state when and where. All is right here, so far. W. 
& J. and I had a long talk yesterday, and it is all in our favor. Please 
write soon and direct as I told you, and oblige. 

Yours, &c, 
Miss Eliza Burke, 
July 1st, 73. Conway st. 

Let me hear from you by ret. of mail. 
C. 

It will be observed that in this letter Campbell Goss is de- 
sirous of arranging for his brother, W. S. Goss, to meet U. 
(Udderzook) in Philadelphia; but, through some blunder on 
the part of the conspirators, W. S. Goss had already met Udder- 
zook in that city, and the two were on their way to Baer's 
Woods, riding in the buggy, at the very hour this letter was 
post-marked in Baltimore. The initial letter '' C " of Campbell 
Goss's name may be noticed in the bottom left-hand corner of 
the letter. The long talk with W. & J. refers to a talk held 
by Campbell Goss with his attorneys in the insurance suits then 
pending, Messrs. Whitney & Johns, of Baltimore. In the early 
part of Udderzook's trial, Mr. Whitney appeared and assisted 
in the conduct of the defense; but before the Commonwealth 
closed its case, he withdrew from active participation in the 
cause. At the time when Mr. Whitney thus withdrew, Mr. 
Johns (who was then in West Chester attending the trial) pri- 
vately expressed his unqualified astonishment at the overwhelm- 
ing testimony produced by the Commonwealth, and also his 
indignation at having been thus imposed upon and deceived by 
his clients, the Goss and Udderzook families.] 



306 HOMICIDE. 

The Goss-Langley photograph, heretofore introduced in evi- 
dence by the Commonwealth, was handed to witness, who iden- 
tified it as a picture of her husband (standing), and of Mr. Lang- 
ley (sitting). — Question. Will you please describe your husband's 
ring? — Answer. His ring was of the same style as this. [The 
ring heretofore introduced in evidence by the Commonwealth.] 
It was the same looking, but the only difference I can remem- 
ber is that his ring was made round in the ridges, instead of 
this beading. That is as I recollect it. I do not know where 
my husband got the ring. He had it about eighteen months. 
I first learned of his having it when he came home with it on 
his finger. I never learned what became of his ring. The 
stone in this ring is the same looking as in that of my hus- 
band's, according to my recollection. I could not say anything 
about the stone more than that his had a stone in it of the 
same color and size. — The Court. One other thing about which 
I want to be certain. I understood you, Mrs. Goss, to say 
that your recognition of these remains as your husband's, was 
from the size of the neck and the form of the body. — Witness. 
The general appearance of the body in size and shape. — The 
Court. Was that your only means of recognition? — Witness. 
The only means there were left. — The Court. The expression 
from the features of the face? — Witness. There was none. 

David Arden. — I am step-father of Mrs. Goss. I live at 
No. 314 Eutaw Street, Baltimore. Mr. and Mrs. Goss lived at 
my house in January, 1872. I remember Mr. Louis Engel's 
coming there on the night of the 2d of February, between 
nine and ten o'clock. He came and informed us that the 
house was burned. I asked him then what had become of 
Goss. I went with him up to the place of the fire, on the York 
Road. I found nothing there but the cinders. There was no 
one about the building at the time I got there. I first saw the 
remains the next morning, at the inquest. I recognized the 
shape of the head, the full neck, and the very full chest, and in 
that manner identified the remains. I had known Mr. Goss 
about eighteen years. There was no scar upon his face. He 
was of fair complexion and smooth skin. I saw the remains 
which were exhumed at Penningtonville. It was on the 19th 
or 20th of July — the day after the examination made by Doctors 



HOMICIDE. 307 

Lewis and Howard. I had two views of these remains photo- 
graphed at the time. [Pictures handed to witness, who identi- 
fied them as the ones he had taken.] Mr. Hanson, from Balti- 
more, was with me at the time. He is a hatter by trade, and 
he had made hats for Mr. Goss for a number of years. Mr. 
Hanson did not take any measurement of the head at Penning- 
tonville, but he took a good view of it. — Cross-examined by Mr, 
Hayes. I identified the charred remains as those of Mr. Goss, 
so far as they could be recognized. I recognized the shape of 
the head, the neck, and the breast. I recognized a resem- 
blance. I recognized the shape of the head; there were no 
features. I have seen other heads of the same shape. The 
neck did not appear swollen. It was a little contracted, not 
much. It did not look quite so large as Goss's neck. It was a 
full, round neck. Of course, I have seen other full, round 
necks of the same kind. The fullness of the chest in these re- 
mains was peculiar. I have seen other men the same way. 
Under the circumstances, I thought I could see the form of Mr. 
Goss there. There was no question at that time about these 
remains being his. I never saw his teeth — could not describe 
them. His eyes were dark blue. His hair was very dark, be- 
tween black and brown. He had a full, round head, good fore- 
head, square eyes, person very erect, broad shoulders, and very 
full chest. When I saw the remains at the inquest they were in 
a box. I could not see the shoulders very well. I examined 
the remains at Penningtonville. Tha.t head was not like Goss's 
head. That head was not a very long head. It was a round 
head, like Mr. Goss's head. The body at Penningtonville was 
lying in a coffin. I did not raise the head up; it lay in the 
coffin all the time I saw it. I thought his head was not as full 
as Goss's. Goss's head was very full. The features were so 
disfigured I could not tell in what other respects it differed from 
Goss's head. I did not see the chest of the remains at Pen- 
ningtonville. We did not go very close ; we did not want to go 
very close; we did not stay there long enough to uncover it, it 
was so offensive. I saw just the head, and that satisfied me at 
once. I did not expect to find the corpse of ^Tr. Goss there. 
I went there because I thought it would be well for nie to 
identify if that was Goss. It was said Goss had been found 
there, and I thought I would go and make sure of it. 



308 HOMICIDE. 

John M, Branson. — I went to Penningtonville with Mr. Arden. 
I am a photographer, and took the picture of those remains. 
One is a full-faced view, and the other is a side-face. They 
were taken on the 19th of July, between three and four o'clock 
in the afternoon. — Cross-examination. We had to prop up the 
body at an angle of sixty degrees, but it would sHde down. 
We could not get it a full front-face, and it shortened the 
head by the angle. It was in a decomposed condition to take 
a picture in. Its hair was all off; the teeth had been taken 
out, and some of the flesh had been removed from the face. 
The sun was shining on it and it blurred the picture. It had 
cleared off from a shower, and the sun was shining very 
brightly, which had a tendency to blur the picture. The fea- 
tures were all gone; they were of no account. There was 
just the outline of the face. 

Sarah Moore. — At the time of the fire I was cook in the 
family of Mr. Lowndes, on the York Road, in Baltimore. Just 
before the fire broke out, I saw Mr. Goss standing outside the 
door of the cottage. His sleeves were rolled up and he held a 
light in his hand. He went in and locked the door, and I saw 
no more of him. I was eating my supper when a dog barked 
at the kitchen door, and opening it I saw flames coming out 
the window of the cottage. I went and told Mr. Lowndes. 
The house I was in w^as about one hundred yards from the fire. 
Monday, Willie and I went over to see if we could find any- 
thing. Willie found a pistol and something like a tea-spoon. — 
Cross-examination. It was between seven and eight o'clock 
when I saw Mr. Goss standing out of doors. When he went in 
I heard him lock the door. There was one other door in that 
house that opens out of doors; it was in the back end of the 
house. — Re-direct. The other door was closed by being prop- 
ped. It was not nailed. They once nailed it, I believe, but it 
broke down and they had it propped. — Re-cross . examination. 
It was propped by logs against it. 

Mrs. Sarah Arden. — I am the mother of Mrs. Goss. I was at 
home at the time the charred remains of Mr. Goss were brought 
to my house. As far as recognition goes, I recognized them 
as his remains, but could not tell a great deal about it, only 
from the form of the head, and on account of the very large 



HOMICIDE. 309 

neck, and the form of the shoulders. I have never seen Mr. 
Goss nor heard from him from that time to this. The sheet 
upon the body was much stained by blood and the black cin- 
ders. I never saw a scar upon Mr. Goss's forehead. — Cross- 
examination. It was impossible to recognize the body in the 
condition it then was. Mr. Goss did not have good teeth. [?] I 
never noticed his teeth. Mr. Goss wore a mustache, so that 
you could not see his teeth, I know that he had not good 
teeth, because I heard him complain of his teeth. 

Mrs. Elisabeth Miller. — I live in Penn township, on the road 
from Jennerville to Penn Station. Mrs. Jane Udderzook was 
at my house during the early part of last July. Her son, 
William E. Udderzook, the prisoner, came there to see her in 
the evening of the first day of July. He stayed there while we 
were at supper and talked awhile, and took his supper there. 
After supper he went away. I next saw him about nine 
o'clock in the morning of the 26. of July. He came in with his 
coat on his arm, and I took him into the sitting-room. He 
went out on the porch after that. He was there about half an 
hour. I did not hear any conversation between him and his 
mother. They went upstairs to change his shirt. I do not 
think he came down again until dinner was ready. He had no 
shirt of his own to change with, and borrowed one of Mr. Mil- 
ler's. I did not notice anything about the condition of his 
clothing when he sat on the porch. I saw him in his shirt- 
sleeves, without either coat or vest on. I noticed nothing un- 
usual about his shirt or about his pantaloons, except they were 
very dusty. — Cross-examination. He came to the house, on the 
evening of July ist, in a wagon of some kind. He came on 
foot the next morning. He went away that evening down to 
Penn Station, and came back again. I did not see him when 
he came back. He and his mother went upstairs soon after he 
came in that morning. I did not see him down-stairs again 
until dinner-time. He went upstairs again after dinner, and 
came down to supper. I did not see him between dinner-time 
and supper. 

Mrs. Jefferis, recalled and examined by Mr. McVeagh. — I 
saw Mr. Udderzook on the morning after he left our place. It 
was near nine o'clock. He was passing my house. It was the 



310 HOMICIDE. 

2d of July. I did not notice anything particularly. He had 
his coat hanging across his shoulders. He passed through Jen- 
nerville, towards Penn Station. I did not notice any change 
from the clothing he had when at our house the day before. 
Mrs. Sarah Kemhle. — I was at Mrs. Mullin's, in Delaware 
county, in June, 1872. I saw several strangers there. I cannot 
tell the names of any but the one — Wilson. I saw a man there 
who was called Wilson. I was there from dinner time until 
evening. We were in the same room, and I again saw him 
sitting on the porch, where I saw him from an open window. 
I saw him at another visit. I met him there twice. That was 
in November, I believe. It was in chestnut time. We vv^ere 
there until the next day, after dinner. [The photograph here- 
tofore introduced in evidence by the Commonwealth, repre- 
senting one person standing and another sitting, was handed to 
witness.] I cannot recognize either of these men. I do not see 
a resemblance to anybody I have ever seen. — Cross-examina- 
tion. I am a sister of William E. Udderzook, the prisoner. 
Mother and Mrs. MulHn were old acquaintances, and mother 
desired me and my children to go with her and see Mrs. MuUin. 
I was never there before. I have been since this matter oc- 
curred. — Question. Did Mr. Wilson say in your presence that 
he knew William E. Udderzook? — Mr. McVeagh. One mo- 
ment. Whether he did or did not know, I object to the ques- 
tion, because it certainly is not evidence. In the first place, it 
is not cross-examination, and in the next place it is not evidence 
as to the fact; we therefore object. — The Court. The question 
may be asked. [Exception noted.] In answer to the question 
witness said: I cannot say that he did. — The Court. Have you 
any recollection? — Witness. I cannot recollect his saying any- 
thing particularly. I do not remember the conversation. The 
conversation was all directed to my mother, and I did not have 
a conversation with him exactly to myself. I cannot say that 
he narrated any conversation about William, and I cannot say 
that he did not. I cannot say, because I do not exactly know — 
that is the reason. — Witness further testified : I have been pres- 
ent in court during this trial this day week. — Question. And you 
never saw either of the gentlemen in this picture? — Witness. 
Oh ! I was told who the one sitting down was. He was pointed 



HOMICIDE. 311 

out to me here. I would not have thought only as he was 
pointed out to me. — Question. Describe this man Wilson to 
the jury, if you saw him sufficiently to do so. — Witness. He 
was not a very tall man, nor was he remarkably short, but he 
was a fleshy man. He had dark hair, dark eyes, and no beard. 
He was a smooth-faced man. I cannot think of anything else 
that I noticed. Mr. Wilson's conversation was with my 
mother; they were talking about half an hour. 

Dr. Jacob Price. — On the 4th day of last August I made an 
examination of William E. Udderzook, at the instance of the 
District Attorney, with a view of finding any marks of a strug- 
gle upon his person. It was a thorough examination of his 
whole person. We found no marks — no recent marks of any 
kind. — To Mr. Hayes. This was more than a month after the 
alleged murder. 

A few witnesses were now examined with a view to impeach 
the character of Samuel Rhoades for truth and veracity. — 
Robert A. Young lived about four and a half miles from 
Rhoades; had known him about three years, and testified that 
the character Rhoades bore in the neighborhood "is not so 
good." On cross-examination he said he had not heard his 
character for truth-telling the subject of remark. — John Town- 
send had known Rhoades about a year; had heard his character 
for truth was not very good. On cross-examination he said 
he had not heard any question of Rhoades's character, that he 
could recollect of, prior to Rhoades's testimony in this case 
having been published. — The Court said : " Information based 
upon that is not evidence." — Samuel Mayers had known 
Rhoades about a year and a half. In answer to the question 
whether he knew of Rhoades's reputation for truth and veracity 
in the community, witness said that he did not know it to be 
very bad. He had never heard a great deal. He never heard 
any reports upon the subject before this case. — Rittenhonsc 
Mayers lived about one and a half miles from Jennerville. 
Rhoades's reputation for truth and veracity was not so good. 
He had never heard it questioned before this case occurred. — 
Harvey Jordan. I live a quarter of a mile north of Penning- 
tonville; have lived there ten years. I was past Baer's Woods 
the 2d day of July, between the hours of eleven and twelve 



312 HOMICIDE. 

o'clock. I saw a horse hitched to the fence. I saw a man 
some fifteen or twenty feet off, coming through the woods to 
the road, towards the horse and wagon. He was getting over 
the fence just as I was opposite the hind end of his wagon. 
He was just opposite where the body was afterwards found — 
between the road and where the body was found. He had an 
open wagon, what we call a mill-wagon. I do not know who 
the man was. I never saw him before nor since. — Cross-exami- 
nation. It was an open, small wagon, I noticed nothing in it. 
There was nothing particular about the man to notice at the 
time. I lived within a quarter of a mile of that place one 
year, and I have frequently gone there, and frequently have 
seen people hitch their horses to the fence there and go into 
the woods for a short time and come out again. There was 
nothing remarkable about it any way. 

Joseph Harper. — I live in Cochransville. I came past Baer's 
Woods on the night of July ist, between ten and eleven o'clock, 
as nearly as I can tell. I was riding in a small, open wagon. I 
did not see anybody as I went past the woods. I saw nothing 
to attract my attention. I saw no fire. I saw no horse and 
wagon hitched there. I heard no sounds of any kind — no 
voices. I cannot tell exactly the time, but it was from ten to 
twelve o'clock. — Cross-examination. I was on my way home 
from Penningtonville. I had been to a store there. It was 
half-past nine when I left the store. On my return I stopped 
at Mr. Harvey's, and stayed there a couple of hours. I suppose 
I heard the clock there strike ten or eleven. I know it did not 
strike twelve. I heard a wagon drive past on a trot when I 
left the house. This house was about a mile from Baer's 
Woods. It may have been after eleven o'clock then. 

A little evidence was now offered in support of the good 
character of the prisoner. 

Andrew Shellady knew Udderzook twenty-three years ago, 
when he came into the neighborhood where the witness lived. 
The prisoner was then about sixteen years of age. He remained 
there six or seven years and then went to Baltimore. While he 
lived in the neighborhood of the witness, the character of 
Udderzook was good, for anything the witness ever knew or 
heard of him. Since that time the witness had known nothing 



HOMICIDE. 313 

about it. For the last ten years witness knew nothing of his 
character. — David Mullin knew Udderzook as a boy, and had 
known him since. His character was good while he lived in 
the family of witness. He was a good boy what time he was 
there. Within two or three years witness did not know any- 
thing about him. On cross-examination witness said he could 
not speak of Udderzook's character since he was about twenty- 
one. — John W. Butler had known Udderzook since about 1867, 
when he came to work for him. All the time Udderzook 
worked for witness he was very industrious and of good char- 
acter. Witness had heard him spoken of, and had always 
heard he had a good character. 

Mr. Par due, addressing the Court, said : 

We are in the unfortunate position of not having our witnesses 
from Baltimore that we expected. We will offer in evidence the pic- 
tures of the remains that were taken at Penningtonville; also a picture 
of Mr. W. S. Goss, taken some six years ago. 

The defense here closed. 

The Commonwealth, in rebuttal, called several witnesses in 
support of the character of Rhoades for truth and veracity. 

Dr. Bailey lived within a mile of Rhoades since 1866, and 
had never heard it questioned. — Robert H. Brown had known 
him at least ten years, and had never heard his character or 
reputation for truth-telling talked of. — Dr. J. J. Gibson had 
known him since 1861, and testified that his reputation was 
good; never heard it questioned. — Hugh Rambo, Esq., had 
never heard it questioned. He had known Rhoades fifteen 
years. — John K. Malone had known Rhoades fifteen years, and 
knew his reputation for truth and veracity to be good. Had 
never heard his word doubted. — Thos. Martin had known 
Rhoades ten years at least, and never heard it questioned. — 
Charles Reese had known Rhoades over twenty years, and never 
heard his reputation for truth-telling questioned. — Samuel 
Shannon had known Rhoades twenty-five years, and never 
heard anybody doubt his word. Never knew it questioned. 

Evidence closed. 

Mr. Perdue opened the argument of the prisoner's case, in 
a lengthy speech to the jury, from which we shall be able to 
make but a few brief extracts. 



314 HOMICIDE. 

May it please the Court and Gentlemen of the Jury — I had hoped 
that the Commonwealth might open this case, and tell their theories 
and give their proofs and points. They have waived their right, and 
the duty falls on me. It is a grave one, and I recognize its responsi- 
bilities. I shall go over the testimony as briefly as the circumstances 
will allow. I don't know that I need go over it minutely. 

The first testimony oflfered has shown you an accurate plan of 
Penningtonville and the vicinity, on which was found, on July nth 
last, the body of an unknown man. 

We will consider the testimony of those who first saw it. Gainer 
P. Moore comes upon the stand, as you have seen, eager to testify, 
and with a show of importance that on him rests the burden of this 
case. 

People see these buzzards every day, without thinking of anything 
remarkable. Do the prosecution believe that it is one of the fatali- 
ties of the case that when he saw them he went over into the woods? 
I do not ask you to throw suspicion on any man, or to say that any 
one has committed murder; but I call your attention to the remark- 
able evidence of Moore, the confidant of Rhoades, who passed a 
number of houses and went to hunt Rhoades, who came back with 
him to where this festered body lay. 

They only stayed there half a minute, raised it up and looked at 
the face. Then they dropped it down and rushed to the road. They 
say they heard a wagon passing. Men are not so easily disturbed 
under such circumstances. When Gainer Moore got to the road he 
found that Rhoades was close to his heels. They did not go back 
for another look, but started for the Coroner. 

This body had been lying ten or twelve days in this grave. The 
birds had torn what little dirt there was on the body off it, the inside 
portions were gone and decayed, a liquid mass filled that skin; but 
they raised it in midsummer, on a broiling July day; but, says Moore, 
the face was white, like a dead man's, with the pallor of death on its 
features, and that any one could have recognized those pale, deathly 
features. I don't say it is not so. I leave it in your hands; it is 
yours to weigh, mine to present. This was the first testimony hurled 
into the jury-box. 

I will divert, to consider the testimony of Rhoades as far as this 
matter is concerned. The first time he put the shovel down, he 
brought up the shirt — a wonderful coincidence! He does not say 
the face was white: it was enough for one witness to prove this fact. 
The Commonwealth did not need his testimony on this; they let that 
fact go. He didn't say it was to be recognized — he was not here to 
make out that part of the case. Then Esquire Rambo was called. 
He is the judicial officer who has been trying this case for the last 
three months. He lays the broad foundation of the case. 

I have not a word to say against Mr. Rambo; I have known him 



HOMICIDE. 315 

for years. I do not doubt he has believed all the time what he testi- 
fied But you must remember the terrible excitement in Pennington- 
ville when this body was found; they were not used to such excite- 
ment; the whole town rushed down to the grave and sat on the 
coroner's jury, and listened with breathless interest to hear all the 
witnesses. 

Recollect they are human — creatures of circumstances, their minds 
to be swayed by prejudices and feelings. The testimony of those 
who have taken an active part in getting evidence must be warped in 
judgment and exaggerated in statement. This is human nature; we 
all do it This was four months since, and all the circumstances have 
been talked over among them. I say it is not unnatural that the 
judgment of these people is not as safe as that of those not close to 
the circumstances surrounding the case. 

There was a man insured in Baltimore, in four companies, to the 
amount of $25,000. On February 2, 1872, this man was burned in his 
shop on the York Road. Of course his family made application to 
the companies for the insurance. The preliminary proof was made 
by disinterested persons. They refused to pay the money. Suit was 
brought, and a verdict was obtained by Mrs. Goss. Immediately 
there was a motion made by these companies for a new trial. While 
this motion was pending, this murdered body was found in Baer's 
Woods. Then the creatures of these insurance companies came up 
to see about it. 

The insurance companies know that Udderzook is a very important 
witness in this trial, in which there is $25,000 at stake. They have a 
very strong interest in this trial. You all know how such an interest 
will prejudice men. If Udderzook should die, they will win their 
case; acquit Udderzook, and he goes to Baltimore to testify against 
these corporations. Their case would then be lost. Therefore they 
want a new trial with Udderzook's part left out. They then have out 
of the way an important witness. 

David R. Mullin tells us that a man came to his house, June 22. 
1872. The man gave the name of A. C. Wilson. He came on a 
Saturday, and went to Philadelphia and came back with a bag. He 
described him as having a smooth, round face. He let his whiskers 
grow. He identifies the picture. Says it looks like Jiiin ! 

Two men often look alike, don't they? We often speak to people, 
mistaking them for somebody else. This picture was shown him 
with Mr. Langley scratched out. When the picture was shown, the 
lower part of the face was covered up, and then the question was 
asked whether they didn't recognize Goss! But if this same thing 
is done to Langley's picture, it looks as much like the picture of 
Goss as two pears. 



316 HOMICIDE. 

Mr. Mullin tells you that he got a letter from Udderzook some six 
or eight months before the fire. Udderzook was raised with Mr. 
Mullin^ and if he should know any one who wanted board in the 
country, was it not natural that he should think of Mullin the first 
one. Six months after this, a man, who said he was from 
Baltimore, came there to board; what connection is there between 
this man and Goss? They have been trying to impress you that 
Udderzook was trying to make arrangements for Goss to go into 
retirement. But there was nothing remarkable in Udderzook's send- 
ing this man there. He knew they took boarders, and was anxious 
to do them a service. 

Mrs. Toombes tells all she knows about this man, and a little 
more. She is absolutely certain that she knew his habits, his clothing, 
his valise; where he got his liquor, how often he drank, and how 
often he was drinking; what paper he read, his associates, when and 
how often and to what degree he was intoxicated. 

She saw him address one letter to Miss Eliza Arden. She prob- 
ably thought she was telling us that he wrote a letter to his wife, as 
she may have gathered the impression that that was the family name 
of his wife; but it happens that the family name of Mrs. Goss was 
Stewart. I much fear this good woman, in her desire to further the 
cause of justice, has " overstepped the mark." 

Mr. Toombes, who had never read the papers, didn't care whether 
Wilson was dead or alive. He saw Udderzook come, and heard 
Wilson call him Doctor, or something. He remembers that morning 
of the nth of May perfectly, just as well as he remembers the fea- 
tures of Udderzook — ^just as well and not a bit better. Mrs. Toombes 
would seem to have lately given up this admirable boarding-house, 
and I have no doubt it was a good one. It may have been because 
of this excitement and her extended field of usefulness. Then they 
all talked about this picture, which had been sent them; and 
O'Donnell had a picture, and Mrs. Toombes had a picture, and they 
would all look at them and talk about them — these pictures with 
Langley crossed off, that the witnesses might not mistake his picture 
for Wilson. Then comes the witness Reeve. It is perfectly delightful 
to find such memories as these Newark witnesses have. We have no 
such minds here. Then Edward Sutton testified. He recollected the 
valise and recognized the ring. He was a jeweller and had exam- 
ined it carefully. He thought the ring had been bent since Wilson 
had it, and you will remember Engel testified Goss's ring was bent 
when he had it in Baltimore. 



The witness Williams next came; he was also from Christopher 
Street. He bade Wilson good-by when he left Newark, and says he 
had no baggage with him. Here again the Commonwealth's witnesses 



HOMICIDE. 317 

do not agree and they should make them consistent. This witness, 
a jeweller, was a remarkable man; he was able to give the nationality 
of rings, and could tell the nation of the men who made them; he 
even knew the relative influence a residence here would produce on 
the workmanship — I must remark the breadth and extent of his mind. 

Mr. Perdue commented similarly upon the manner and char- 
acter of nearly all the witnesses produced by the State, throwing 
doubt upon their testimony and impressing upon the jury the 
fact that the prisoner was entitled to the benefit of everything 
which looked doubtful. His entire argument occupied nearly 
four hours. The Honorable Wayne McVeagh, the senior 
counsel for the defense, then addressed the jury in an eloquent 
and fervent appeal in behalf of the prisoner. The argument 
of the distinguished counsel was directed to the inherent im- 
probabilities of the case, and he made the most of all that 
could be turned in any way to the advantage of his client. He 
was listened to with marked attention by the jury, the Court, 
and the mass of spectators which filled every available place in 
the spacious court-room. 

District Attorney Abram Wanger followed with the closing 
argument for the Commonwealth. He reviewed the formid- 
able array of evidence which had been pcoduced against the 
prisoner, and pointed out the consistency of the theories of the 
State as based upon that evidence. 

Upon the conclusion of Mr. Wanger's argument. Chief Judge 
Butler delivered the following charge to the jury: 

Gentlemen of the Jury — The prisoner at the bar, as you have 
learned, is charged with murder. The case of the Commonwealth 
rests upon what is known as circumstantial evidence. And, indeed, 
where wilful, deliberate murder, contemplated beforehand, is com- 
mitted, it rarely occurs that direct, positive evidence respecting it 
exists. Perpetrated as it usually is by lying in wait, by means of 
poison, or by falling upon the victim when no one is by, the only 
evidence must, commonly, be found in the circujnstaitces attendi7ig it. 
And this character of evidence is ascertained by experience to be 
little, if any, less satisfactory than that which is known as direct or 
positive. Where the circumstances relied upon are properly estab- 
lished, and the inferences arising from each one, and from all of 
them combined, point naturally in one direction, there is no greater 
danger in following them to their conclusion than attends all human 
investigation. That we 7nay err in such cases, is possible: but so 
we may where the evidence is direct or positive; the circumstances 



318 HOMICIDE. 

may, possibly, mislead, but so may the eyes, or the ears, or the dis- 
honesty of witnesses. 

Now, turning to the evidence, we find that on the nth day of 
July last, 1873, Gainer P. Moore passed Baer's Woods, on his way 
to Cochransville; he observed buzzards there in large numbers, and 
a very offensive odor. When returning home he entered the woods 
to ascertain the cause of what he had observed; and at the distance 
of about sixty-five feet from the turnpike he discovered (in his own 
language) " something mysteriously hidden," a small part of which 
was uncovered (doubtless by the birds), the balance concealed by 
means of leaves and a thin covering of earth, and with the dead 
limbs of trees placed lengthwise over it. Obtaining the aid of Mr. 
Rhoades, who lives some distance away, he returned to the place with 
a shovel. Upon the earth being raised up at the left side of the body, 
a bloody shirt was uncovered. Next the head was raised, and the 
body ascertained to be that of a man. At this time, the witness says, 
the face was quite white and natural, and he believes he could have 
recognized it had he been acquainted with the individual in life. It 
was now about half-past five o'clock in the evening. They left the 
grave in the condition described, and (after attempting to procure 
the aid of a man who drove by on the turnpike) went to Penning- 
tonville, and notified the Deputy Coroner, Mr. Rambo. This gen- 
tleman, with several others, started for the place, and reached it, as 
they have said, about seven o'clock, being a little before sunset. Mr. 
Moore also again returned soon after. The color of the skin had 
now changed, and was quite dark — as you heard it described. The 
Deputy Coroner had the covering removed from the other parts of 
the body, and it was then seen that the legs and arms were oflF. 
That part of the abdomen which was exposed when Mr. Moore first 
entered the woods was open, the entrails had disappeared, a mass of 
semi-liquid corruption occupying their place. In another part of 
the woods, about sixty-five feet distant, the arms and legs were 
found, also under a slight covering of earth and leaves. The body, 
with the limbs, was removed to the turnpike, placed in a box, and 
then taken to Cochransville. At the grave in the woods, and at 
Cochransville, it was examined by Dr. Bailey (more critically at the 
latter place), and he has described to you the marks he found upon 
it. He says there was one opening in the side, between the third 
and fourth ribs, another, he thinks, between the fifth and sixth ribs, 
and another between the eighth and ninth, and that these openings 
were on a line; that he found another between the sixth and seventh 
ribs (farther towards the back), and another at the lower part of 
the breast-bone. How these openings or holes were made, the wit- 
ness is unable to form any judgment, inasmuch as decomposition had 
probably changed their form when he saw them. He also found a 
small cut on the left side of the neck, about an inch above the collar- 
bone, not penetrating deeper than the skin; another incised or cutting 



HOMICIDE. 319 

wound commencing on the left side of the neck, under the ear and 
on a line with it, running across the windpipe, opening it in two 
places. Also a small incised wound across the depression of the 
lower lip, not through the skin; and another wound across the bridge 
of the nose, breaking the bones and depressing them, apparently made 
with a blunt instrument of about the thickness of a spade. He also 
found that the front teeth, four above and four below, had been 
driven back into the mouth — two still adhering to the gum, and two 
lying loose upon the tongue. 

Dr. Howard testified that he made an examination on the i8th of 
July; refers to the wounds on the nose and the mouth, and says 
the blows by which they were inflicted must necessarily have been 
very severe. 

Now, were these remains those of one who had lost his life by 
violence? 

The unusual place and unusual manner of interment; the mutila- 
tion by severance of the limbs, so as to prevent identification, and 
their separate concealment; the marks upon the body, and manifest 
evidence of violence about the neck, nose, and mouth; the bloody 
shirt found in the grave — all bear with great weight upon this ques- 
tion. If you find that a murder or homicide of any grade was com- 
mitted, you would next pass to the question: Who was the man so 
killed? The Commonwealth alleges that it was Winfield Scott Goss. 
Was it? 

Winfield Scott Goss resided in the city of Baltimore and its near 
vicinity in the year 1871 and the early part of '72. He was a brother- 
in-law of the prisoner. Mr. Barnitz, who knew him intimately, hav- 
ing been employed in the same establishment with him for some 
years, describes him as about five feet eight to nine inches in height, 
well-built, with an exceedingly prominent bust, very erect, with 
shoulders thrown far back, his form full, and in every way well devel- 
oped, with dark eyes, a straight nose, a round, full face, dark brown 
hair, a little mixed with gray, a prominent forehead, and good teeth. 
Other witnesses similarly describe him — Mr. Carter saying that his 
teeth were very fine. 

He had procured insurance on his life in several different com- 
panies, to a large amount — the first policy bearing date the 21st day 
of May, 1868, and the last the 25th day of January, 1872. On the 
night of the 2d of February, 1872, a frame shop, in which it is said 
he was engaged in gilding picture frames, and experimenting with 
a substitute for india-rubber, was found to be on fire. After it was 
consumed, or nearly so, the charred and blackened remains of a man 
were discovered in the cinders, lying near the chimney, which was 
about the centre of the building. Goss was no more seen in the 
neighborhood, and on the 23d day of the same month in which the 
fire occurred, his wife made application to the insurance companies 
for payment of the sum insured on his life. Payment being refused, 



320 HOMICIDE. 

she commenced suits against them, the prisoner appearing as a wit- 
ness in her behalf. Were the remains found in the fire those of 
Goss? 

That Goss went to the building some time during the day pre- 
ceding the fire, is clear. Joseph Loudenslager (the comments on 
whose testimony you will remember) says he saw Goss, in company 
with the prisoner, start on the afternoon of that day, from the city 
for this building; that they took with them a box four to five feet 
long, about fifteen inches in depth and width, containing, as the 
prisoner alleged, machinery for Goss's laboratory. Louis Engel tes- 
tified that the prisoner and Gottlieb Engel came to his father's house 
(a short distance from the shop) after dark, saying the lamp at the 
shop had gone out, and desiring another to take over; that they did 
not start back immediately, but, in the language of the witness, 
" stopped about the house after the lamp was ready; " and while still 
there, the prisoner, who went to the door to empty a tumbler or 
dipper, from which he had been drinking, saw the fire and gave the 
alarm; that he, the witness, the prisoner, and Gottlieb, ran over — the 
prisoner and Gottlieb falling a little behind; that when he reached 
the shop, it was in flames, and not long after the roof and upper part 
fell in; that he saw no attempt to enter the building or arrest the 
fire; that he heard no suggestion that any one might be inside, until 
after the building was burned nearly down, when the prisoner came 
and requested him to go to Baltimore and inform Goss's family of the 
fire and that Goss was missing. Sarah Moore, the colored woman, 
called by the defense, testifies that she was living at the time of the 
fire about one hundred yards from the shop; that, having occasion 
to go to her door, she saw Goss outside the shop, with a light in his 
hand, that it was dark and she did not see him in front, but observed 
his side face as he passed in, and heard him lock the door; that she 
then sat down to her supper, and soon after finishing it, discovered 
the shop to be on fire. 

Mr. Smith testifies that he reached the fire when the building was 
all in flames; that he heard Mr. Gator complaining to the prisoner 
for not giving the alarm before the fire had gotten so far, if he sup- 
posed anybody to be within the building, asking him if he desired to 
create a false alarm by saying Goss's body was in the flames, and 
that the prisoner replied he was unacquainted with anybody about the 
place. 

The witness says he then went nearer the fire, and procuring the 
assistance of Martin Quinn, found a body, and succeeded in dragging 
it out of the flames; that, seeing the prisoner again in the crowd, 
he asked him if he was going to leave the corpse there like that of 
a dog, while claiming it to be the remains of his brother; upon which 
the prisoner turned his back and made a noise as if crying. The 
corpse was then placed in a box, and taken to Mr. Lowndes's stable, 
where it was left for the night. The next morning, this witness says. 



HOMICIDE. 321 

he went to the scene of the fire, as early as it was light enough to 
see, and sought among the ashes for Goss's watch and ring, finding 
nothing but a melted bottle, part of the door-hinge, and a few small 
bones. From the body the hands and feet were off; the skin was 
burned crisp and blackened, and identification by means of the fea- 
tures and expression was impossible. Mrs. Goss testifies that the 
corpse was brought home in the evening of the day following the 
fire; that she identified it as that of her husband. She says, how- 
ever, she judged only by the size and shape of the head, the neck, 
and body; that in these respects it resembled him. This, it must be 
observed, falls short of identification — which can only result from 
observing some peculiar mark by which the individual may be 
known, or the peculiar expression formed by the features of 
the face. Mr. Arden, the step-father of Mrs. Goss, who saw the 
corpse, also testifies that he observed the same resemblance to Goss 
in the head, neck, and body. Mrs. Arden, the mother of Mrs. Goss, 
says the body could not be recognized by reason of its condition, but 
that the shape of the head and body resembled those of Goss. Dr. 
Howard testifies that about one year after the fire he made a careful 
examination of this body and found it to be that of a man about 
five feet eight to ten inches in height, with full chest, and shoulders 
thrown back. This witness further says that upon a critical examina- 
tion of the mouth, he found that one-half the teeth had been lost, 
many months, at least, before death — two of them directly in front, 
one being from the upper and the other from the lower jaw. This 
latter statement is important when considered in connection with that 
of the witnesses who have described Goss's teeth as regular and 
fine. 

On the day preceding the fire, it is testified that Goss drew out of 
bank the balance standing in his favor, and his account there closed. 

Was it his body that was found in the fire? If the inquiry stopped 
here, it might be unsafe to conclude that it was not. But the inquiry 
does not stop here; there is other evidence bearing upon this ques- 
tion, of a highly important character. On the 22d day of June fol- 
lowing the fire, and while the suits referred to were pending, a man 
presented himself at the house of David Mullin, Cooperstown, asking 
to remain as a boarder, and giving his name as A. C. Wilson. Mr. 
Mullin says he remained until the i6th day of the next November, 
when he left for Athensville, about two miles distant. Here he 
remained one week, and then left, appearing at Mrs. Toombes's 
boarding-house, in Newark, on November 29th, where he remained 
nearly seven months. The witnesses who saw this man at Coopers- 
town and in Newark describe him as stoutly built, five feet eight to 
nine inches in height, full-chested, shoulders thrown back, with dark 
brown hair a little mixed with gray, good teeth, full, broad forehead, 
and having, when in Newark, mustache and side whiskers. The wit- 
nesses do not all precisely agree in describing his features, but unite 



322 HOMICIDE. 

as regards his general appearance, and in saying that his face was 
fine. Several witnesses also state that he had a habit of drinking to 
excess. These witnesses further testify that he carried on some cor- 
respondence with Baltimore, where Goss had resided — sending letters 
and packages, and receiving others in return. One witness, Michael 
Olrey, testifies that, being acquainted in Baltimore, he conversed with 
Wilson about mutual acquaintances residing there. It is clear he 
knew the prisoner, for he received a visit from him while at Newark. 
A pair of pantaloons, which several witnesses recognized as Wilson's 
— left behind when quitting Newark — have been exhibited. They are 
darned in the seat, and are thus identified. Mrs. Toombes says she 
noticed that they were very short for him. Louis Engel testified 
that when Goss boarded in his father's family, near Baltimore, during 
the summer or fall preceding the fire, he had such a pair of panta- 
loons as those exhibited; says he, the witness, assisted Mrs. Goss to 
wash them; that he noticed the color, the cord on the side of the 
leg, and also observed that they were short for Goss when worn. 

It is further shown that this man wore a large blood-stone ring, 
such, in general appearance, as the one exhibited here. Some of the 
witnesses testify that they recognize this as the same. Engel testi- 
fies that Goss had a similar ring, being in all respects like this; that 
he, the witness, wore it sometimes, and that he believes this to be 
the same; while Mrs. Goss, who describes her husband's ring as being 
of about the same size and of the same general appearance as this, 
says it was, according to her recollection, in some respects different. 
Whether it is possible for any of the witnesses to recognize the ring 
fully, so as to swear to its identity, is for you to determine. It would 
seem to the Court safer to conclude that the ring worn by Goss at 
Engel's and that seen on the man known as Wilson, were alike in 
size, shape, material and general appearance. A frock-coat is pro- 
duced, which Mrs. Toombes identifies as a coat worn by Wilson, 
and left behind him when quitting her house. On this coat being 
exhibited to Mr. Hines, a tailor residing in Baltimore, he testified 
that he made one in all respects like it, being of precisely the same 
measure, for Goss. That while he cannot describe to you how he 
recognizes his own work upon this coat, he tells you that he believes 
he does. It is shown by several witnesses that Goss, while in Balti- 
more, had in his possession what is called a double ratchet screw- 
driver, very peculiar in its construction, and claimed to be his own 
invention. It is further shown that the man calling himself Wilson 
had a wooden model of this same screw-driver, which he claimed to 
have invented. Louis Engel testifies that when Goss boarded at 
their house, near Baltimore, he saw him and Udderzook a good deal 
together, and that Goss frequently called Udderzook ' ' Doctor. 
Several of the witnesses who saw Udderzook and the man called 
Wilson together at Newark, testify that Wilson called Udderzook 
''Doc.'" The significance of the last-mentioned circumstances cannot 
be overlooked. 



HOMICIDE. 323 

And now, following this evidence, designed to show similarity in 
person and apparel, in the habit of intemperance, possession of the 
screw-driver, and in the appellation or title used when addressing 
Udderzook, the Commonwealth has undertaken to prove the actual 
identity of Goss and the man known as Wilson, by exhibiting the 
photograph of Goss to the witnesses who were familiar with Wilson, 
some of them having been his room-mates in the boarding-house. 
Were it possible to produce Goss himself before these witnesses, as 
he appeared in life, they would tell us, doubtless, whether he is the 
same man who was known to them as Wilson, and their judgment 
would be the highest and best source of information on this subject. 
As Goss cannot be so produced, possibly the next best means of 
judging of his identity with Wilson is obtained by producing his 
photograph (if it be a perfect one), and allowing these witnesses who 
were familiar with Wilson to base their judgment on it. The picture 
is of course a much less satisfactory means of judging than the pres- 
ence of the individual would be, because it shows the face in a state 
of repose, not very frequently observed in the individual; and, showing 
it on a much smaller scale, the expression of the face is less distinct. 
Still, where a photograph is perfect, it shows an exact likeness to 
the extent presented, and can generally be recognized with great 
ease by those familiarly acquainted with the individual. The photo- 
graph exhibited here is shown to be that of Goss. Some of the wit- 
nesses who knew the man called Wilson, say this picture looks like 
him, that the shape of the forehead and face is like his, but they 
do not recognize the picture as his. Their testimony must not be 
overestimated. It goes no farther than to show resemblance. 
Other witnesses more familiar with this man, particularly some of 
those who boarded in the same house with him, say they recognize 
Wilson in this picture, one saying, he " sees the man in it," others, 
" it is him," and so on, in varied language expressing the same thing. 

Too much importance should not be attached to the fact that these 
witnesses were not able to point out any particular feature by which 
they recognized the picture as his. If asked to point out the feature 
or features by which your most intimate friend is distinguished from 
others, you probably could not do it. Were you to refer to the size 
of the head, shape of his face, nose, or mouth, you would doubtless 
find that in all these respects he is not singular. But you recognize 
him instantly, and with absolute certainty, by the peculiar expression 
which results from the combined efifect of all his features and his 
mind. And this you cannot describe, for words will not portray it. 

In determining the weight to be attached to the testimony of the 
witnesses who say they recognize Wilson in the picture, or recognize 
the picture as his, it is important to remember that when they knew 
him his beard was different. What effect the change of beard would 
have had on the expression and appearance of the picture, you will 
judge. You will also bear in mind the comments of the defendant's 



324 HOMICIDE. 

counsel on this testimony, and the fact that the prisoner's sister, who 
saw Wilson at Mr. MuUin's, says she does not see any likeness to 
him in this photograph. The Commonwealth has further undertaken 
to show that Goss and this man wrote, not only a similar, but the 
sa7ne hand. In this connection Emma Taylor testifies to the receipt 
of many letters or notes from Wilson, and a knowledge of his hand- 
writing. Two letters — one of them addressed to Mr. Mullin, signed 
A. C. Wiison, being exhibited to her, she says, in her judgment, 
they are in his handwriting. On being shown another letter signed 
W. S. Goss, and testified by Mr. Butler (as he believes) to be in 
Goss's handwriting, she says that, in her judgment, this is the hand- 
writing of Wilson. This witness, however, as you will remember, 
did not exhibit such accurate knowledge of Wilson's handwriting as 
to render her judgment in regard to it very reliable; and what she 
says should therefore be received with great caution. 

John W. Butler testifies that he knew Goss intimately, and corre- 
sponded with him some years ago; that he knew his handwriting 
very well, and believes himself able to recognize it. The letter 
signed W. S. Goss (before mentioned) being shown him, he answered, 
*' I believe this to be Goss's handwriting." The two letters signed 
A. C. Wilson (also before mentioned) being shown this witness, he 
answered, "that the writing, in his judgment, is that of Goss.'' The 
signature of A. C. Wilson, on the register of the Central Hotel, in 
Philadelphia, under date of , being shown the witness, he an- 
swered that he would take this to be written by Goss, as also the 
signature on the register of the William Penn Hotel, though in 
respect to these single signatures his judgment is less distinct than 
that expressed in regard to the letters. The intelligence manifested 
by this witness, as well as the caution observed in expressing his 
judgment, should be considered in estimating the value of his testi- 
mony. 

Franklin Mills testifies that he knew the man called Wilson, and 
upon one occasion, when sitting at his side, discovered a small scar 
running up into his hair on the side of his forehead—that he had 
never noticed it before. Mrs. Goss testified that her husband had no 
scar upon him. You have heard the comments of counsel in respect 
to this, and will determine what weight this contradiction should 
have, but in doing so will remember that Mr. Mills speaks of the 
man more than a year after Mrs. Goss had last seen her husband. 

Now, was this man, called Wilson at Cooperstown and Newark, 
Winfield Scott Goss under an assumed name? 

If he was, you will judge whether the conclusion is or is not rea- 
sonable, that he had entered into a scheme to obtain money fraudu- 
lently from the insurance companies, and that the burning of his 
shop was a part of this scheme. If you reach this conclusion, a 
reason will be found for his appearance in Pennsylvania and New 
Jersey under an assumed name. Still, if you find that this man was 



HOMICIDE. 325 

Goss under an assumed name, you will have made but a step towards 
finding that the remains discovered in the woods were his. But now 
(if this was Goss) we have him in Newark on the evening of the 25th 
day of June, sixteen days preceding the discovery in the woods. 
He then started for Philadelphia. Mrs. Toombes testifies that, three 
days later, he wrote to her from Philadelphia under date of the 28th. 
Francis Jacobs testifies that he is clerk and bar-tender at the William 
Penn Hotel, in Philadelphia; that in the forenoon of the 26th (the 
day after this man left Mrs. Toombes's), a man came to the hotel, 
representing himself to be A. C. Wilson, and registering this as his 
name. The witness describes him, and being shown the photograph 
exhibited here, says it looks like this man. He is unable to describe 
any other stranger who called about that time or since, and says he 
did not recognize the resemblance in the photograph until told whose 
it was. You will judge whether this witness can truly describe this 
man as he undertakes to do, and whether he does see the resem- 
blance in the picture to which he testifies. That a man came to the 
hotel, representing himself to be A. C. Wilson, that the witness saw 
him register his name, that he stayed till the next day, that the pris- 
oner visited him, occupying the same room, and went away with him 
the next day, the witness is positive. The register is produced, and 
the name A. C. Wilson appears upon it; and this signature, as we 
have seen, Miss Taylor and Mr. Butler expressed the judgment is in 
the handwriting of Goss. If this witness is believed, it was on the 
morning of the 27th that the prisoner and this rnan left the William 
Penn. Where they went at that time does not appear. 

On the evening of the following day, the prisoner was seen upon the 
train at Wilmington, by Mr. Hodgson, who rode with him to Phila- 
delphia. We do not observe any conflict between the testimony of 
Mr. Hodgson and that of Mr. Jacobs — because we fail to see incon- 
sistency between the facts to which they speak. Two days later, 
Francis Pyle, who lives near West Grove, in this county, testifies that 
the prisoner, in company with another man, came to his place. He 
says he had known the prisoner formerly, and recognized him. Mrs. 
Pyle and the little boy, Elmer Pyle, also saw the men there, and say 
they recognize the prisoner as one of them. Mr. Pyle and the boy 
describe the appearance and parts of the dress of the other, referring 
to his build, his whiskers and mustache. Mrs. Pyle saw but little of 
him and was not very near. Mr. Pyle says he wore gaiters like 
those shown here, and had a ring on his finger. Upon being shown 
the photograph, he says it looks like a picture of this man. The son 
also, in addition to the general description, says this man wore 
gaiters, had eye-glasses, and that when they were together under the 
cherry-tree this man called the prisoner " Doctor." This last circum- 
stance, if true, is very significant, for, as we have seen (if the witnesses 
are believed), this is the same appellation by which Goss. in Balti- 
more, and the man calling himself Wilson, in Newark, addressed 
Udderzook. 



326 HOMICIDE. 

From Mr. Pyle's place these men went in the direction of Jenner- 
ville. In the evening of the same day Mr. Jef?eris, Mrs. Jefiferis, and 
Mr. Townley, testify that the prisoner, with another man, appeared 
at the hotel of Mr. Jefiferis, in Jennerville. These witnesses recognize 
the prisoner, as does also Mr. Wallace, who saw him there and had 
known him before. They describe the other man as about five feet 
eight to nine inches in height, good-looking, full-breasted, straight, 
with shoulders thrown back, mustache and side whiskers of a dark 
color, Mrs. Jefiferis saying that she at the time thought he was the 
straightest man she had ever seen. On being shown the photograph 
before referred to, these witnesses also say the picture resembles this 
man. The next morning — being the ist of July — it is shown (if the 
testimony is believed) that the prisoner obtained a horse of Mr. 
Patchell, living near by, and visited his brother-in-law, Samuel 
Rhoades, who resides a short distance from Penningtonville. 

Here he was recognized by Mr. Rhoades and his wife, who is 
the prisoner's sister. They testify that he spoke of the man he had 
left behind at Jennerville, and Mr. Rhoades says he described him as 
a man "' having no one to look after him, who had been lost for a 
long time, and was supposed by everybody to be dead, one whom the 
prisoner had had at Newark, or New York (the sound being so much 
alike that the witness is not certain which), and Philadelphia." The 
bearing of this description upon the identity of the man left behind 
is liiost important. You will judge whether it does or does not 
describe Goss and the man known at Newark as Wilson with great 
certainty: " Lost for a long time, supposed by every^body to be dead, 
whom he (the prisoner) had had at Newark (or New York) and 
Philadelphia." On the evening of the same day, the prisoner having 
hired a carriage and horse at Penningtonville, went to Jennerville, 
took the man he had left there in, and started back. When he 
reached Penningtonville in the night, this man was gone, and was no 
more seen alive. Baer's Woods is by the roadside. Were the 
remains found there his? The last time seen he was going in that 
direction. If Mr. Rhoades is believed, the prisoner had contemplated 
leaving him in the woods. 

When the remains were first uncovered, Mr. Moore testifies that 
the face was white and natural; says he looked to ascertain whether 
he could identify it, and believed at the time, and does still that he 
could if he had known it. On being shown the picture before referred 
to, he says it bears a resemblance to that face. This, standing alone, 
would be of no value, because of its uncertainty. But Mr. Moore, 
and others who saw the remains that evening and the next day, say 
the upper lip presented the same appearance as the cheeks did where 
the whiskers came ofif on being touched, showing that the man had 
worn a mustache with side whiskers; that his hair was dark brown, 
mixed a little with gray; and Dr. Howard, as well as all the witnesses 
who examined the remains with care, says the forehead was square 



HOMICIDE. 327 

and straight, the face fine, chest full, shoulders well thrown back, the 
person very erect, and teeth regular and good. You will judge 
whether this is or not an accurate description of the man we have 
been following. In the same grave a shirt was found. It is not 
identified, for there are no marks upon it by which to distinguish it 
from others. There are many such, as Mr. Crockett testifies, but this 
witness says he sold a shirt in all respects like this, in Newark, to a 
man called Wilson, as he was informed; and Mrs. Toombes testifies 
that Wilson had such a shirt, showing another point of resemblance. 

Then again, a pair of congress gaiters are found upon the feet, 
resembling those worn by the man we have been following. But a 
more remarkable and striking resemblance still is found in the fact 
that this man's gaiters were marked No. 8, on the inside near the 
top (if Mrs. Toombes is believed, of which you will judge), and had 
recently (as Mr. Saurine testifies) been half-soled, and the gaiters 
found on these remains exhibit a similar number, in the same place, 
and a similar condition in respect to the soles. Now, you will deter- 
mine whether these are the remains of the man we have been follow- 
ing. If they are, and this man was Goss, then did the prisoner take 
his life? 

In starting upon this inquiry the first thought that presents itself 
is, had the prisoner any motive to commit this crime? If the remains 
are those of Goss, you will still judge, as before remarked, whether 
he had not entered into a scheme to defraud the insurance companies 
by hiding himself from the world and endeavoring to create the belief 
that he was dead. And if he did enter into such a scheme, you will 
further judge whether the conclusion is or is not reasonable, that 
the prisoner had also entered into this scheme. For it would follow 
that while Goss was thus alive under an assumed name, and while 
the prisoner knew this, for (according to the testimony, as we have 
seen) he visited him at Newark on the nth of May, he appeared as 
a witness, on the 28th day of the same month, to prove his death; 
not, it is true, by swearing directly that he was dead, but by swearing 
to circumstances by which he sought to create that impression — and 
the result is the same. If it is true that the prisoner had united in 
such a scheme, it was very important to him that the existence of 
Goss should not come to light; for if it did, not only would the 
scheme fail, but the prisoner become liable to prosecution for con- 
spiracy and perjury. If you find such motive existed, then you will 
judge whether the disappearance of Goss from the neighborhood in 
which he was known, and his reported death, did not invite the com- 
mission of the crime by reason of the immunity from discovery 
which these circumstances tended to afiford. Still, a motive to com- 
mit the crime, and such opportunity to gratify it, would be of no 
consequence in the absence of evidence that the prisoner did commit 
it. Then what is the evidence that he did? 

If Wilson was Goss under an assumed name, and the remains 



328 HOMICIDE. 

found in the woods were his, then we have found the prisoner and 
Goss together on the ist day of July. On the evening of this day, as 
we have further seen, the prisoner visited his brother-in-law, Samuel 
Rhoades, whose testimony I will now read: [The evidence of Rhoades 
was here read by the Court.] 

This witness and his testimony have been criticised by counsel, 
and you will determine what weight his statements should receive. In 
this connection it is important to remember that he exhibited the 
prisoner's letter, referred to, soon after it was received, and reported 
to his neighbors the interview, detailed here, almost immediately upon 
its occurrence. You will also remember the testimony heard respect- 
ing his character for truth-telling; and will examine the prisoner's 
letter, to see whether it does not corroborate his statements. That 
letter appears by the envelope to have been forwarded in the preceding 
December, and Mr. Rhoades testifies that it was received at that 
time. 

On the evening of the same day after the interview with Rhoades, 
as night was coming on, the prisoner started with the man by his 
side in the direction of Penningtonville. Baer's Woods is about nine 
miles from the place of meeting, and in this direction the parties 
were going when last seen. John Hurley, who lives within a short 
distance of the woods, testifies that his wife, in the night, aroused 
him to hear a noise in that direction. That he distinctly heard hal- 
looing, and distinguished the voices of two individuals, but could not 
distinguish any expression except the exclamation " Oh ! " That 
about daylight the following morning he discovered smoke arising 
from a fire in the woods; and several other witnesses testify to having 
seen fire in the woods on that morning. 

Now, if the remains found in the woods are those of the man who 
started with the prisoner from Jennerville, you will judge whether 
the prisoner did or did not carry out the design which Rhoades says 
he expressed in the interview a few hours previous; whether the 
hallooing testified to by Hurley as heard that night did not come 
from this man; and whether the smoke seen did not issue from a fire 
that consumed the bloody garments (as well of the perpetrator as of 
the victim), and other evidences of the crime. It is further shown 
that about twelve o'clock the same night the prisoner returned the 
vehicle to the stable at Penningtonville. The iron supporting the 
dasher on the left side, where the man was sitting when last seen, 
was broken, and the leather bent forward; two of the bows supporting 
the top, on the same side, were broken from the bed, and swinging 
loose. The oil-cloth that had covered the floor was torn out and 
gone; the blanket and sheet that had accompanied the wagon were 
missing. What had become of them? Had they been stained with 
blood and consumed in the fire? After discovery of the body in the 
woods, the floor of the wagon was examined, and red spots, appar- 
ently made by blood, were observable on the edges of the boards 



HOMICIDE. 329 

forming the bottom, and underneath where it appeared to have 
spread. Dr. Howard testifies that, having appHed mieroscopic and 
analytical tests to these spots, he ascertained them to be made by blood. 

Where the prisoner spent the balance of the night after returning 
the vehicle, does not appear; he was seen early the next morning 
entering Cochransville on foot. Later in the day he was met still 
on foot going in the direction of Jennerville. On the evening of the 
same day, about six o'clock, he appeared at Penn Station, on the 
Philadelphia and Baltimore Railroad, where he took the train east, 
getting oflf again at West Grove — this being the point at which he 
and his former companion had (according to his own statement), left 
the train two days before. In a short time he reappeared, carrying 
a carpet-bag or valise, and entered the train going westward. At 
Penn Station he again left it^ and passed in the direction of Mr. 
Miller's, where his mother resided. On the next day — being the 3d 
of July — he took the train for Baltimore. When arrested he made a 
statement, which you have heard; and you will judge whether it is 
consistent with probabilities, or finds any countenance in the ascer- 
tained facts of the cause. We now repeat the questions before stated: 
First, were the remains found in Baer's Woods those of Winfield 
Scott Goss? Second, if they were, did the prisoner at the bar take 
his life? Both these questions must be found against the prisoner 
before he can be convicted. In passing upon them you will carefully 
weigh all the evidence, as well as the comments of counsel upon it; 
and will also consider the testimony which the prisoner has produced 
in regard to his former character. 

If you convict him you must determine the grade of his crime. 
That it is murder^ if he is guilty at all, has not been questioned by 
his counsel. But in Pennsylvania the Legislature, considering the 
difference in guilt, where a deliberate intention to kill exists, and 
where no such deliberate intention appears, has distinguished murder 
into two degrees — murder of the first and murder of the second 
degree ; and required the jury trying the accused, if it finds him 
guilty, to ascertain and find by their verdict whether it be murder of 
the first or murder of the second degree; and has further provided 
that " Murder which shall be perpetrated by means of poison or lying 
in wait, or by any other kind of willful, deliberate, and premediated 
killing, shall be murder in the first degree; and all other kinds of 
murder shall be deemed murder of the second degree." 

Then, if the defendant is guilty, is it of murder of the first, or 
murder of the second degree? 

If the prisoner is guilty of killing Goss, you will determine whether 
it is not plain that the crime was contemplated beforehand, and the 
killing willful and deliberate? The circumstances bearing upon this 
question have been so fully stated, in treating other parts of the 
cause, and must be so distinctly present in your minds, that we need 
not repeat them here. 



33a HOMICIDE. 

Still this question is for you alone to determine, and if you con- 
vict the prisoner you must say whether it is of murder in the first or 
second degree. 

In conclusion, we urge upon you to bear constantly in mind its 
great importance. To the prisoner it involves everything of earthly 
desire. You will, therefore, give to the facts not only their most 
reasonable construction, but also their most charitable and merciful 
construction; and if, when thus considered, they fail to satisfy you of 
his guilt, you will acquit him, regardless of all consequences— and he 
is entitled to the benefit of every reasonable doubt. A doubt, how- 
ever, is not a mere possibility that the prisoner may not be guilty, but 
an honest hesitation of the mind arising from want of proof. 

If, on the other hand, the facts satisfy you of his guilt, you must 
convict him. In such case no consideration of pity or mercy can 
influence you. To the tender appeal made by the presence of wife 
and children you must turn a deaf ear. To listen to it would be 
more than a mistake; it would be a crime — a crime against the inno- 
cent — against society. With the consequences which may attend con- 
viction, you have nothing to do; they rest upon others. If the evi- 
dence satisfies your minds of his guilt, you have no choice. Follow- 
ing the pathway of the evidence you can turn neither to the right nor 
to the left, but must accept the conclusion to which the facts lead. 
If you entertain views unfavorable to capital punishment, you must 
disregard them here, remembering that it is not the jury, but the 
law, that inflicts the punishment. The jury does not pronounce the 
sentence, which condemns to death, but simply determines whether 
the prisoner has committed the crime. 

You will now take the case, and forgetting everything, but the law, 
the evidence and your duty, will pass an honest, deliberate, and fear- 
less judgment between the Commonwealth and the prisoner. 

The jury retired on Friday afternoon, November 7th, and on 
Sunday morning they sent a written request to see the Judge. 
They were brought back into open court, where Judge Butler 
received them in presence of counsel and prisoner, and in- 
formed them he would hear their request. The foreman said 
that they desired more light in regard to the evidence of Dr. 
Bailey. The Court sent for its notes and read the desired evi- 
dence very carefully. The foreman then said that the counsel 
had particularly called their attention to sundry papers, which 
they were charged to examine carefully, but which had not 
been given to them. The Court said they would send for the 
papers and place them before them, which was done. The jury 
then retired to their rooms, and the court adjourned. 



HOMICIDE. 331 

At two o'clock P. M. the court was reopened on information 
that the jury had agreed, and the prisoner was brought in. 

The Clerk then asked: Gentlemen of the jury, have you 
agreed upon your verdict? 

Mr. Morton (foreman). — Yes. 

Clerk. — What say you in the issue joined between the Com- 
monwealth of Pennsylvania and William E. Udderzook, defend- 
ant — do you find him guilty in manner and form as he stands 
indicted, or not guilty? 

Foreman. — Guilty of murder in the first degree. 

Judge Butler said : Gentlemen, your duties have been arduous 
and painful, and we have sympathized with you very deeply. 
We now discharge you, and for the careful and patient manner 
in which you have fulfilled your duty, you are entitled to the 
thanks of your fellow-citizens. 

Mr. Perdue, of the prisoner's counsel, made a motion for a 
new trial. He was told that he had four days in which to file 
his reasons. The prisoner was remanded back to jail, and the 
court adjourned. 

V. 

On Tuesday afternoon, the 8th of December following, the 
testimony for a new trial of William E. Udderzook commenced. 
Mr. Perdue said the motion for a new trial rested mainly on the 
reason that two of the jurors had expressed opinions in regard 
to the murder, previous to the trial; also upon the reason that 
the Court erred in sending the Dr. Steele letter to the jury for 
examination and comparison. The next subject spoken of by 
Mr. Perdue was that of permitting photographs to be used in 
the identification of dead bodies. A little evidence was pro- 
duced to show that Arnold Nichols, the twelfth juror, had ex- 
pressed an opinion as to the guilt or innocence of Udderzook. 

Mr. Hayes addressed the Court in behalf of the Common- 
wealth. He spoke disparagingly of the testimony in regard to 
the statements alleged to have been made by Nichols. He 
said: "It is a fact that Nichols was accepted as a juror by the 
defense, after he admitted that he expressed an opinion in re- 
gard to the guilt or innocence of the prisoner." He continued: 
" I submit to your Honor that, from the testimony, we can find 



332 HOMICIDE. 

no malevolence in Nichols's statements. It has been shown 
that he expressed a desire not to be put upon the jury, im- 
mediately before he was called." Mr. Hayes made a few re- 
marks upon the letters which were sent to the jury, and argued 
in support of the use of the photographs for the purposes of 
identification. As soon as the argument on behalf of the Com- 
monwealth was finished, Wayne McVeagh arose and said: 

There are two questions to be considered in this argument. The 
first is in the delivery of the letters to the jury, on the Sunday upon 
which the verdict was rendered. 

If these letters had been given to the jury in the beginning, before 
they had determined to decide the one way or the other, they would 
have been much less dangerous than after they had been deliberating 
for a day and a half or two days upon the matter. The Court may 
feel that when the jury ask for these things they should receive them; 
but I think this is more dangerous than if they had had them in the 
beginning. Undue importance would be attached to the slightest 
trifle, after having deliberated for so long a time without reaching any 
conclusion. In the jury-room, perhaps, an immaterial difference may 
have arisen, and after hours of wrangling they agree to ask for testi- 
mony which would ^settle the dispute, and each side agrees to come 
over to the other in case of its being decided adversely. The letters 
are taken out and the opinion of one side upon the immaterial dis- 
pute is corroborated, and then the verdict is rendered, having been 
reached by an artificial bridge. 

I next speak of the testimony in regard to Arnold Nichols . . . 
you have heard the statements of these witnesses, and the denials of 
them by Nichols. Can your Honors hesitate to give the prisoner the 
benefit of this doubt? .... You will ask yourselves whether this 
man, as a juror, answers the requirements of the Constitution and 
the law. In the selection of the jury we must act hastily, and will 
necessarily often make mistakes. Nor is there any help for it, if, 
after accepting a man, you find you are misled and that he is unfit. 
Now, we only ask for a jury of fair minds. To that right we are 
entitled. I know that it is the natural disposition of this world to let 
things remain as they are, and to take a verdict as final. But I ven- 
ture to urge, as reasons for setting this verdict aside, the facts in 
reference to this man Nichols, and I submit to the Court whether it 
is possible to constitute him such a juror as the Constitution pre- 
scribes. 

Upon reconvening of the court on Saturday, the 12th day 

of December, Judge Butler announced the disposition of the 

Udderzook case, as follows: 



HOMICIDE. 333 

Cominonwealth v. Udderzook. — The first and fourth reasons on 
which the demand for a new trial is founded have been abandoned. 

The propriety of using the photograph of Goss, to aid in his iden- 
tification, under the assumed name of Wilson, we do not doubt. Nor 
do we doubt the propriety of granting the request of the jury to see 
the letter signed by Goss, which was in evidence. 

The testimony relating to Mr. Wilson, one of the jurors, fails to 
show any expression of opinion previous to the trial, and, in the 
judgment of the Court, is not deserving of further notice. 

That relating to Mr. Nichols, another juror, does show expressions 
of opinion; but this is no more than the juror stated when called to 
the box. It is urged, however, that the language used by him, as tes- 
tified to by Lewis Powell, shows that this juror did not come to the 
trial with impartial mind. Without enlarging upon the testimony of 
Mr. Powell, it is sufficient to say, that it did not impress the Court 
favorably as respects the witness himself. His admission on being 
recalled, that Mr. Nichols was intoxicated at the time to which he 
had previously referred, and his voluntary addition that he was not 
" more so, however, than he commonly is," did not seem to indicate 
an unbiased mind towards the juror. With Mr. Nichols's denial we 
do not regard the objectionable expressions as proved. But if this 
were otherwise, and Mr. Nichols under the influence of liquor at the 
time, his language might well be regarded as an exaggerated expres- 
sion of opinion resulting from the excitement of liquor. In the sub- 
sequent statement, that he did not believe the prisoner guilty, or did 
not believe the evidence would convict (and the witness cannot be 
relied upon for the exact language used), we do not see the evidence 
of evil mind towards the prisoner, suggested by counsel. The judg- 
ments of men are very diverse, and it is not improbable that many 
honest and impartial persons entertain this view. 

District Attorney Wanger then moved that the judgment 
and sentence of the Court in vindication of the law be passed 
upon the prisoner. Judge Butler then delivered the sentence, 
as follows: 

An impartial trial, in which you were prosecuted with fairness and 
liberality and defended with zeal and ability, has resulted in your con- 
viction of murder in the first degree. And this result is just. 

That the corpse found in Baer's Woods was that of Winfield Scott 
Goss is not open to doubt. From the building on the York Road, 
which was burned to cover the flight of this man, he is traced with 
unerring certainty to the desolate grave in the woods. Changing his 
name, and seeking to hide himself, he yet left behind, wherever he 
went, evidences of identity that preclude all danger of mistake. His 
striking peculiarity of person, his habit of intemperance, the remark- 
able ring he wore, his handwriting, parts of his dress left behind, his 



334 HOMICIDE. 

photograph, recognized wherever he went, and especially his " patent 
screw-driver," exhibited from time to time, his peculiar habit o£ 
addressing you by the title of " Doctor," and your own graphic 
description of him to Rhoades '' as a man who had been lost for a 
long time, and was supposed to be dead," enable us to identify Goss 
in the man called " Wilson " with as much certainty as if he had 
worn his proper name. 

Traced from place to place, a few days before the body was dis- 
covered he was seen in the vicinity of Baer's Woods, going in that 
direction, and was not seen alive thereafter. You, who were there 
with him, had informed Rhoades, only a few hours before, that the 
woods was his contemplated destination. When the grave was 
opened, the same remarkable personal peculiarities of Goss were 
found in the corpse — the resemblance agreeing in everything, down 
to the color of the hair, the shape of the whiskers, and the length of 
the unshaven beard. The ring was gone from the finger, but it was 
found virtually in your possession — upon the seat of the vehicle in 
which you had been riding.' All his clothes, save the shoes and shirt, 
had been destroyed; but these remaining articles resembled his so 
closely that the shoes are virtually identified as the same. They were 
not only similar in kind, but were peculiarly marked in two respects, 
as his had been. We repeat, with unerring certainty Goss is traced 
to this grave. And with the same certainty is his murder traced to 
you. First, it is shown that you had a motive to commit the crime: 
the success of your schemes, as well as your personal safety, coun- 
selled, if they did not demand it. Second, it is shown that you ex- 
pressed your purpose to do it — at first dimly, as in the letter of 
December, and afterwards distinctly, as in the conversation with 
Rhoades. And thirdly, it is shown that you did it. Five days pre- 
ceding the event he left the William Penn Hotel in your company; 
three days later he is found in this county, still in your company, 
manifestly under your influence, passing westward, and shunning 
observation. In the evening of the next day, as night came on, he 
was again seen in your company — seated by your side in the 
vehicle procured at Penningtonville — now in the neighborhood of 
Baer s Woods and going in that direction. Thus you were with him 
immediately preceding his death, near to, and approaching the place 
where found; directly after you were alone, and he was no more seen 
alive; the vehicle in which you were riding together was broken, the 
carpeting torn from its floor, the blankets missing, and the floor 
stained with blood. But a few hours previous you had expressed 
your purpose to commit the crime, and sought the aid of your 
brother-in-law in its accomplishment. 

To the crushing weight of these terrible facts you opposed nothing 
but an improbable, inconsistent statement, proved to be untrue in 
some respects, and supported by evidence in none. No rational 
mind with this knowledge can entertain a doubt of your guilt. 



HOMICIDE. 335 

And it is not the guilt of an ordinary murder. With full average 
mind and fair intelligence you entered upon a gigantic scheme of 
fraud. An element in this scheme was the false assertion of Goss's 
death, supported by fictitious appearances — the creation of your acts 
— supplemented by your perjury. Possessed of a strong will, you 
carried this scheme almost to successful accomplishment. When, at 
length, threatened with discovery, your plans and your personal 
safety endangered, you resolved to secure yourself by taking the life 
of your accomplice in this crime. You had known him long and 
intimately, and were closely connected with him by marriage. You 
had obtained his confidence, and he seemed to follow your sugges- 
tions with unquestioning trust. You dragged his weary feet from 
place to place, under pretence of seeking an asylum where he might 
still be secure. At length you reached the neighborhood familiar to 
your youth — where it might well have been hoped the recollections 
of that better, purer time in your life would have awakened some 
spark of tenderness and arrested your cruel hand. But here — reso- 
lutely and fatally bent on your wicked purpose — as evening faded into 
night you committed this most horrible of crimes. Leaving your 
victim for a time, you returned at the solemn hour of midnight, and 
with the peaceful stars looking down upon you, and the sad appealing 
eyes gazing up, you carved and quartered him as if he were a dog, 
spending the night in a futile effort to cover up the evidence of your 
guilt. Then, visiting your aged mother, you returned to your wife 
and children, with as little apparent concern as a man returns from 
a journey of pleasure. The long record of crime scarce furnishes a 
parallel to this case. 

These things are not said to increase the misery of your present 
situation, but to vindicate the sentence which the law is about to pro- 
nounce. Nor are they said without sorrow; for we are not unmindful 
that human justice is imperfect; that the weakness of your moral 
nature and the force of your temptation cannot enter into its judg- 
ment. That they will be considered and justly weighed in the 
balance by Him who knows the secret troubles of the soul, whose 
justice is perfect, and whose mercy is boundless, we cannot doubt. 

The three judges here arose, and the sentence proper was 
given as follows: 

The Court does now order and adjudge that you, Wm. E. Udder- 
zook, be removed hence to the prison from whence you came, and 
there be closely confined until such a day as the Governor may appoint, 
when you shall be taken from thence, and hanged by the neck until 
you are dead. May God have mercy on your soul. 

During the passing of the sentence, Jttdge Butler was very 
much moved, showing how keenly he felt the terrible impor- 
tance of so unpleasant a duty, and when he had finished he 



336 HOMICIDE. 

reclined back in his chair, and placing his hands over his eyes, 
so remained for several minutes. 

Udderzook, throughout the trying ordeal, changed some 
little in color, and showed some nervousness; but when the 
sentence was concluded, he, at the direction of Mr. Perdue, 
took his seat in an orderly manner, with not a tear or show of 
fear evident. After the sentence was delivered the Judge 
ordered the sheriff to take the prisoner back to jail. 

VI. 

The counsel for the defendant had taken a great number of 
exceptions during the trial, but not one of them was ultimately 
sustained. On July 2, 1874, the Supreme Court of Pennsyl- 
vania, sitting in banc, affirmed the sentence of death. Chief 
Justice Agnew delivered the opinion, which is of special inter- 
est, covering as it does the question upon the admissibility of 
photographs in evidence. 

William E. Udder zook v. The Commonwealth. — Error to the Court 
of Oyer and Terminer of Chester County, Eastern District. Opinion 
of the Court. Agnew, Chief Justice: — This is indeed a strange case. 
A combination by two to cheat insurance companies, and a murder 
of one by the other to reap the fruit of the fraud. The great ques- 
tion in the case was the identity of A. C. Wilson as W. S. Goss. 
This was established by a variety of circumstances and many wit- 
nesses, leaving no doubt that Goss and Wilson were the same person, 
and that the body found in Baer's Woods was that of Goss. All the 
bills of exceptions, except one, relate to this question of identity, the 
most material relating to the use of a photograph of Goss. This 
photograph, taken in Baltimore on the same plate with a gentleman 
named Langley, was thereby proved by him, and also the artist who 
took it. Many objections were made to the use of this photograph, 
the chief being to the offer of it to identify Wilson as Goss, the pris- 
oner's counsel regarding this use of it as certainly incompetent. That 
a portrait or a miniature painting from life, and proved to resemble 
the person, may be used to identify him, cannot be doubted; though, 
like all other evidences of identity, it is open to disproof or doubt, 
and must be determined by the jury. There seems to be no reason 
why a photograph, proved to be taken from life and to resemble the 
person photographed, should not fill the same measure of evidence. 
It is true that the photographs we see are not the original likeness, 
and their lines are not traced by the hands of the artist, nor can the 
artist be called to testify that he faithfully lined the portrait. They 
are but paper copies taken from the original plate, called the nega- 



HOMICIDE. 337 

tive, made sensitive by chemicals and printed upon by sunlight 
through the camera. It is a result of art guided by certain principles 
of science. In the case before us such a photograph of the man Goss 
was presented to a witness who had never seen him, so far as he 
knew, but who had seen a man known to him as Wilson. The pur- 
pose was to show that Goss and Wilson were one and the same 
person. It is evident that competency of the evidence in such a case 
depends on the reliability of the photograph as a work of art, and 
this, in the case before us, in which no proof was made by experts 
of this reliability, must depend upon the judicial cognizance we may 
take of photographs as an established means of producing a correct 
likeness. The daguerrean process was first given to the world in 
1839. It was soon followed by photography, of which we have had 
nearly a generation's experience. It has become a customary and a 
common mode of taking and preserving views as well as the like- 
nesses of persons, and has obtained universal assent to the correct- 
ness of its delineations. We know that its principles are derived from 
science; that the images on the plate, worked by the rays of light 
through the camera, were dependent on the same general laws which 
produce the images of outward forms upon the retina through the 
lens of the eye. The process has become one in general use; so 
common we cannot refuse to take judicial cognizance of it as a proper 
means of producing correct likenesses. But, happily, the proof of 
identity in this case is not dependent on the photograph alone. Let- 
ters from Wilson, identified as the handwriting of Goss; a peculiar 
ring belonging to Goss, worn upon the finger of Wilson; the recog- 
nition by Wilson of A. C. Goss as his brother; packages addressed 
to A. C. Goss, and envelopes bearing the marks of the firm with 
which W. S. Goss had been employed, coming and going to and from 
Baltimore, and many other circumstances following up the man 
Wilson, leave no doubt of his identity as Goss, independent of the 
photographer. The objection to the proof of Goss's habits of intox- 
ication is equally untenable. True, the habit is common to many, 
and, alone, would have little weight. But habits are a means of iden- 
tification, though with strength in proportion to their peculiarity. 
The weight of the habit was a matter for the jury. It is unnecessary 
to follow the bill of exceptions in detail. They all relate to the facts 
and circumstances bearing on the question of identity. If the bills 
of exceptions are many, they only denote that the circumstances were 
numerous, and in this multiplication consists the strength of the 
proof. 

They are many links in a chain so long it encircled the prisoner 
in a double fold. There was no error in permitting the jury, after 
their return into the court for further instructions, to take out with 
them, at their own request, the letter, check, due bill, and applica- 
tions for insurance — papers which had been proved, read in evidence, 
and commented on in the trial. The appearance, contents, and hand- 



338 HOMICIDE. 

writing of the documents were, no doubt, important to be inspected 
by the jury, who could not be expected to carry all these features in 
their minds. It is customary in murder cases to permit the jury to 
take out, for their examination, the clothing worn by the deceased, 
exhibiting its condition, the rent made in it, the instrument of death, 
"and all things proved and given in evidence bearing on the commis- 
sion of the offense. We discern no error in this record and there- 
fore afifirm the sentence and judgment of the Court below, and order 
this record to be remitted for execution. 

VII. 

Strenuous efforts were now made by the counsel and imme- 
diate friends of the prisoner to obtain a pardon or a commuta- 
tion of sentence. A hearing upon this took place before the 
Board of Pardons, in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, on the 8th of 
October, 1874. The result was unfavorable to the petitioner, 
and a few days afterwards Joseph F. Perdue, Esq., one of the 
counsel for Udderzook, received the following letter from 
Governor Hartranft: 

Executive Chamber, Harrisburg, 
Jos. F. Perdue, Esq., Oct. 12, 1874. 

West Chester, Pa.: 
Dear Sir. — After careful consideration of the facts in the case of 
William E. Udderzook, I believe it to be my duty to issue the warrant 
for execution. 

I am yours, with great respect, 
'' J. F. Hartranft. 

Upon receipt of this letter, Mr. Perdue immediately pro- 
ceeded to the jail to acquaint the prisoner, accompanied by two 
other gentlemen whom he had requested to go with him. Upon 
entering the cell of the wretched man, Udderzook read at a 
glance, in the countenance of his counsel, that the mission was 
of a serious character; and taking him by the arm, he led him 
to the farthest corner of the cell and asked, '' Have you my 
death-warrant?" Mr. Perdue replied that he had not, but he 
had what was substantially the same thing, and then read to 
him the letter from the Governor. At the conclusion of the 
reading, Udderzook expressed his disapproval of the action of 
the Board of Pardons, and also of that of the lower Court in 
not granting him a new trial. " But," said he, straightening 
himself up and assuming an air of injured innocence, " they 



HOMICIDE. 339 

have all the way long thirsted — plotted for my life — and now 
they can have it." He said to Mr. Perdue that he had been 
well and ably defended, and gave his hand to attest his feeling 
of the truthfulness and sincerity of his remark. In the after- 
noon succeeding this interview with his counsel, the aged 
mother of the prisoner appeared at the jail, and upon her 
solicitation was shown to the cell of her unhappy son. The 
interview was a protracted one, and the scene is said to have 
been most pathetic. 

The death-warrant soon followed, and was read to Udder- 
zook, in his cell, by the Sheriff, in the presence of the pris- 
oner's counsel, the District Attorney, and several other gentle- 
men. The warrant required David Gill, High Sheriff of the 
County of Chester, to cause the sentence of the Court to be 
executed upon Udderzook, between the hours of ten o'clock 
in the forenoon and three in the afternoon of Thursday, the 
1 2th day of November, 1874. 

During the reading the prisoner stood with bowed head and 
clasped hands, and listened with seeming attentiveness. When 
the Sheriff had concluded, that ofHcer remarked to the doomed 
man, "I hope you'll be prepared," to which the prisoner re- 
plied, ''You said the 12th of next month?" and the Sheriff 
responded, "Yes." "That," said Udderzook, "is just four 
weeks from to-day. I am thankful I have that much time 
given me to prepare. If any of you were in my situation, you 
would think this time very short, but I am thankful it is so 
long — thankful that I am granted sufficient time to prepare for 
the worst. I suppose those who busied themselves in working 
against me thought they were discharging their duty — they may 
have been. The Governor, I suppose, thought he did his duty ; 
also the officers of the Supreme Court of the State, and the 
Court that tried me here, and the Commonwealth's officers, and 
the insurance agents — all thought they were performing acts 
such as their duties demanded. There were some things done 
falsely, but I hold no malice towards any one. I forgive them 
all." It is not probable these were the exact words used by 
Udderzook, for he was incapable of expressing himself so con- 
cisely. But they, no doubt, faithfully express the ideas he 
intended to convey, although dressed in the words of one of 
his auditors. 



340 HOMICIDE. 

During the four weeks intervening between the reception of 
his death-warrant and his execution, Udderzook busied him- 
self in writing, but destroyed his manuscripts without making 
pubHc their contents. He wrote letters to every member of 
his family, and expressed a desire to make a speech upon the 
scaffold, but from this he was dissuaded. One of his letters 
written for publication, dated October 19th, 1874, and addressed 
" To the world and my loved ones," appeared in the news- 
papers of that date. In that letter he says (correcting some 
errors of orthography): "It is my desire that my remains will 
rest in Baltimore, if not in the same lot, at least in the same 
cemetery with those of Mr. W. S. Goss, a friend ever dear to 
me, that our bodies may return to the mother dust, and our 
spirits may mingle together on the bright, sunny banks of 
deliverance, where pleasures never end. ... I hope the time 
is not far distant when the people will see the danger of pre- 
pared and bought testimony, and a pre-arranged design aided 
by thousands of dollars." 

He reiterates his innocence; and intimates to his "readers" 
an obscure, prophetic alarm as to what the insurance companies 
will do. 

The execution of the murderer was consummated shortly 
after noon of the 12th day of November, 1874. It was attended 
with the least possible ceremony, everything being conducted 
by Sheriff Gill " decently and in order." Udderzook made no 
allusion to his guilt or innocence while upon the scaffold, nor 
did he appear disconcerted to any noticeable extent. 

He died manifesting the same spirit of arrogance that had 
been so conspicuous in him from the night of the fire on the 
York Road. 

ANGIE STEWART, THE MURDERED CHILD. 

On the evening of December 5, 1867, a fire broke out in 
the basement of a frame dwelling-house in the village of 
Canaan, Columbia County, New York. As other dwellings 
were in close proximity, the neighbors hastened to the burning 
building in response to the alarm. The house was unoccu- 
pied, excepting the basement story, which had been rented 
temporarily to a man known as Joseph Brown, a painter by 



HOMICIDE. 341 

trade, who recently had arrived in the village, and who was 
accompanied by a woman, " Josephine," whom he called his 
wife, and a little girl, " Angie," whom he called his daughter. 
The fire was subdued quickly, having been confined principally 
to the basement pantry, where it had been smouldering some 
time before discovery. All of the outside doors of the house 
were found to be locked, and, upon effecting a forced entrance 
into the basement kitchen, the neighbors found the pantry door 
tightly closed. After getting it opened and extinguishing the 
fire therein, the dead body of little Angie was discovered 
underneath a pile of partially burned rubbish. Brown and his 
wHq were absent at a neighboring house at the time, and did not 
reach the scene of the fire until after the charred remains of 
the little girl had been recovered, and the fire wholly extin- 
guished. The attendant circumstances were so questionable 
as to give rise to startling rumors, but these finally quieted 
down, and the superficially conducted inquest of the coroner 
gave credence to a generally accepted theory that the child, 
while temporarily left alone in the house, had attempted to fill 
a lighted kerosene oil lamp, which had exploded and caused 
her death by burning. The following certificate was published 
soon after the occurrence, and was sufficient to divest the afifair 
of any degree of public interest beyond that of short-lived pity 
for " poor little Angie." 

Canaan, N. Y., Decern. 6th, 1867. 
This is to certify that I have this day examined the body of Angie 
Brown, by order of the Coroner of this county (Columbia), and find 
that she came to her death by reason of fire communicated to her 
clothing and other combustible matter to me unknown, which fire 
was sufficient to cause her death. Azariah Judson, M. D. 

But the matter was destined not to rest here. Brown caused 
the child's remains to be boxed up for burial and removed to 
Granby, Connecticut, the place of his wife's former home. In 
company with his wife he left Canaan for Granby, stopping cii 
route in Westfield, Massachusetts, where they visited a lawyers 
office and made up formal and afifirmative proofs of loss under 
an accident insurance policy, and forwarded their claim by 
mail to the Travelers Insurance Company. It appeared that 
the child had been insured against death by accident, in the 



342 HOMICIDE. 

sum of $5,000, for the benefit of Joseph Brown, the insurance 
being for the term of three months, and was written at the 
Cleveland, Ohio, agency of the company, under date of Sep- 
tember 19, 1867. The mysterious circumstances surrounding 
the child's death were recalled under the light of this claim to 
recover the insurance, and the company, having its attention 
directed to the affair, was not slow to investigate it. 

It was ascertained that Brown had come from Dayton, Ohio, 
where he was known as Joseph Barney, and the woman as his 
wife, Josephine Barney. They had lived in Dayton several 
months, where Barney, alias Brown, had worked at his trade, 
that of painter. It was further learned that the little girl Angie 
was the daughter of a Mrs. Stewart, a respectable widow, resid- 
ing in Dayton, and that the Barneys had obtained possession 
of the child on the 17th of September, with the consent of 
Mrs. Stewart, for the purpose of accompanying Mrs. Barney 
on a trip to Connecticut and return. Taking Angie Stewart 
with them, the Barneys went from Dayton to Cleveland, where 
they obtained insurance, under the name of Brown, upon Jose- 
phine and Angie in the sum of $5,000 each; thence they went 
to Canaan, New York, where they boarded for a while, and 
there rented the basement story of the house wherein the fire 
was discovered shortly afterwards, as has been related. 

Further developments and revelations led to the arrest of 
Brown and his wife, who were brought from Granby to Hart- 
ford, and lodged in jail. Subsequently, on a requisition from 
the Governor of New York, they were taken to Hudson, where 
bills of indictment were found against Brown for the double 
crime of arson and murder, and his trial was fixed for the April 
term of Court. 

The trial of Joseph Brown commenced April 13, 1868, and 
the first witness called was Mrs. Mary H. Stewart, who testified 
that she resided in Dayton, Ohio, and that she was the mother 
of Angeline Stewart, whose age was twelve years. Witness 
recognized the prisoner at the bar and his wife, having known 
them in Dayton for a period of five or six months as Joseph 
and Josephine Barney. They left the house of witness in 
Dayton, on the 17th of September, taking Angie with them. 
They said they were going to Cleveland first, where they 



HOMICIDE. 343 

would purchase a suit of clothes for Josephine and Angie each, 
and after remaining in Cleveland a few days, they were then 
going to New York. Barney said he was going to seek work, 
and would return to Dayton after being absent three weeks, 
while Josephine was going on to Hartford with Angie; but, if 
Angie should become homesick, he would bring her back to 
witness when he returned. It was further agreed with Barney, 
that, upon his return to Dayton and until his wife's return, he 
was to board with witness. Josephine was intending to take 
another little girl instead of Angie, but that girl was taken sick, 
and then the Barneys pressed urgently for Angie, saying she 
would be back in a short time. After much entreaty, witness 
consented, "little thinking it would be as it is!" 

On cross-examination, Mrs. Stewart further testified that the 
Barneys wanted Angie to call them father and mother, saying 
they thought it would be nice in travelling. Witness told them 
the girl was too old to call them father and mother, but finally 
consented to their request, though she did not tell the child to 
so call them. They did not speak of adopting Angie. Mrs. 
Barney represented to witness that she wanted her as a com- 
panion, saying that men sometimes were uncivil to a woman 
travelling alone, and with a child accompanying her, people 
would know she was married. When speaking of their return 
from their Eastern trip, the Barneys said to witness, " Mother, 
when we come back, we will keep the house for you, and keep 
it well, too." 

The testimony of the succeeding witnesses occupied several 
days, and was comprehensive and conclusive. It was shown 
that when Brown left the house to rejoin his wife, who had gone 
to make a neighborly call, in conformity with their arrange- 
ments, he locked the outer doors; that the door of the pantry 
in which the child's body was discovered opened outwardly 
and adhered at the bottom, and that it could not have been 
pulled tightly shut, as it was found, from the inside ; that as the 
thin dress she wore — which was minutely described — was in- 
sufficient for combustion, other materials, obtained by splitting 
the shelving of the pantry, remnants of which were found, were 
added, and these had been saturated, apparently, with the in- 
flammable fluids with which painters are familiar; that volun- 



344 HOMICIDE. 

tary imprisonment in the form and manner as described in 
which Httle Angie \vas found, was impossible; that if her dress 
had taken fire from the explosion of a lighted lamp while refill- 
ing it, the natural impulse to scream for aid, and, if possible, to 
escape from the building, would have demonstrated itself in an 
obvious way; and that the lamp theory was disproved by the 
fact that Angie had been using a candle. Her young friend, 
Harriet Silvemail, who lived in the next house, called in be- 
tween half-past six and seven o'clock in the evening to invite 
her to go to a prayer-meeting. Angie was eating her supper, 
and a candle, about half consumed, which attracted Harriet's 
observation, was burning on the table. Angie excused herself 
from going to meeting on the plea that " her father and mother 
were going away." That was the last interview with any one 
but her murderers. 

Early in the investigation of this case the charred remains 
were exhumed and carefully examined by three physicians, who, 
in their evidence during the trial, concurred in the opinion that 
death took place before fire was applied to the body. This 
opinion was based, mainly, upon the appearance of the trachea 
or windpipe, and the upper portion of the lungs, which were 
found to be free from the evidences of irritation which would 
have existed if the child had respired heated air. The body 
appeared to have been burned while in a sitting posture, upon 
the floor, the seat being the only portion unbumed. The skin 
covering this unbumed portion was found to be in a perfectly 
natural condition, while the partially burned clothing and re- 
mains gave a strong and unmistakable odor of turpentine. 

It was also in evidence that, upon the announcement of the 
tragic fate of Angie to Brown and his wife, by their neighbors, 
Mrs. Brown could not conceal her brutal indifference, while the 
cold and cruel-hearted Brown's attempt to faint without pallor 
of countenance, and his pretence of emotion, were so ineffectual 
as to provoke comments of incredulity and displeasure. Dr. 
Judson, who keenly pitied them, was obliged to say that 
he " saw no manifestations of grief, no tears shed." It was 
shown, too, that in conversations with their acquaintances, the 
insurance idea was uppermost in their minds. Mrs. Provost, 
for instance, testified: ''Josephine said she could get my life 



HOMICIDE. 345 

insured, or anything I had, and I would be none the wiser; and 
if I should die, she could get the insurance money in spite of 
anybody." Josephine was free to declare that she herself had 
been insured, but cautiously concealed the fact of the simul- 
taneous insurance of Angie. Moreover, it was shown that their 
purpose was to invest the sum, to be fraudulently obtained, in 
the purchase of a farm, and that Brown was already negotiating 
with Mr. Buell for such purchase. Brown offered Buell $5,000 
for his farm, and said to the witness '' he would show the peo- 
ple of Canaan that he would have the money. Josephine play- 
fully boxed his ears and said, ' Yes, maybe $10,000.' " He 
also had been in conference with Mr. Williams, proprietor of a 
hotel in Canaan, about buying that place. Mr. Williams fixed 
the price at $3,000, and told Brown that he would make the 
payments easy. In reply Brown said that, if he bought, he 
would pay all cash. 

It is also worth while to recur to a portion of the testimony 
of the Hartford lieutenant of police, who despatched an offi- 
cer for the arrest of the Browns, and who said that they were 
brought to the station-house in Hartford and placed in different 
cells. That night, while they were in their cells, he heard a 
conversation going on between them, of which he made a 
memorandum in writing at the time, as follows: "Joe, Joe; 
everybody has gone home, and it is almost light; I told the 
officers all I knew about the child." Brown said, " You had 
better go to sleep and not say another word till after we have 
sent for a lawyer." She said, "Jeffrey Phelps will be here in 
the morning; I told the officer I first saw the child in Dayton, 
now remember that; and that you were in the country at the 
time; that you had been the father of two children, and one 
had died, and that you were a kind father." Brown said, " You 
keep still till we see a lawyer; go to sleep now." She said, 
" I can't, but I'll try. I told him you kept those policies in 
that coat-pocket — the coat you had on in Westfield; the coat 
you bought in Ohio — do you understand?" Bro^\ai said, 
" Yes." She said, " Well, remember." At this stage of the 
conversation the lieutenant interrupted her and told her to 
stop talking, or he would place her in a dark cell. 

The lieutenant subsequently had a long interview with 



346 HOMICIDE. 

Brown, and th'e conversation was fully reported and read in 
court. Brown's answers to questions propounded proved to 
be a tissue of falsehoods. He said, for instance, that he left a 
former wife, whom he represented as Angie's mother, in Can- 
ada, because of her habitual intoxication; and that she after- 
wards died in Montreal. Probably the only truthful remark 
he made was, upon realizing his situation, " I have told the 
insurance cornpany that I would give them the policy if they 
would let me go." 

The defense was unable to produce any evidence to satisfac- 
torily explain away the fearful position in which Brown had 
been placed by the prosecution. The learned and able counsel 
for the prisoner did the best that could be done with the 
slender materials at his command. Mrs. Lydia Fox was called 
to say that she resided in Granby, Connecticut, and was the 
mother of Mrs. Josephine Brown, who was married to the 
prisoner two years previously; and that she never knew of their 
going by any other name than that of Brown. On cross- 
examination it appeared that she had no knowledge of their 
marriage other than that she had seen an announcement of such 
marriage in some newspaper; and that she had never seen 
Brown until the time he came to Granby with Josephine, for 
the purpose of interring the remains of Angle. Furthermore, 
a letter from Mrs. Fox to Josephine was produced, wherein it 
appeared that the witness " had heard Josephine was not mar- 
ried to Brown." 

Mr. Drowne, called by the defense, said that Brown worked 
for him on the forenoon of the day of the fire ; quit about twelve 
o'clock, and quit because he had finished his job of work. A 
few witnesses were interrogated with an effort to show that the 
alleged fainting fit of Brown was real, and not feigned; that the 
heap of charred rubbish found upon the dead body of the child 
was occasioned by knocking down the pantry partition; and 
that the pantry door which swung into the kitchen was not 
difificult to open, although " it had settled from the top, and 
only by pushing hard, or by putting the foot against it at the 
bottom, would it crowd shut." 

The learned counsel then addressed the jury in behalf of the 
prisoner, going over the evidence in detail and at great length, 



HOMICIDE. 347 

He assailed the evidence of the medical experts who had testi- 
fied, devoting much time to show that it had not been proved 
that the child was dead before burning. He called the jury's 
attention to the fact that there was plenty of evidence to explain 
the death of the child upon the idea that she had set herself on 
fire accidentally, by some mysterious means; she had a light; 
she had explosive materials; every requisite for the production 
of the effects which were produced. He remarked that much 
had been said by the District Attorney, in his opening state- 
ment, about the motive of Brown to commit murder. Brown 
had a policy of insurance upon Angle's life for $5,000, which he 
supposed would come to him in case of death; but if he had 
such an idea, it was a mistaken one. He had no insurable 
interest in the child, and the insurance was, of course, null 
and void. " Motives," said the counsel, " exist in regard to 
everything. No man does anything without motive, and the 
only motive established here was that Brown, perhaps, believed 
at the time he took the policy, that he would reap the benefit 
in case of Angle's death. Motives are always looked for, be- 
cause you cannot ordinarily convict without a motive. It is 
unreasonable to suppose that a person in sound mind will com- 
mit homicide without a motive. It does not follow, because 
there is a possible motive found, that the person did actually 
commit the homicide. You must have proof to convict Joseph 
Brown, as though there was entire absence of motive for the 
crime." 

Attorney-General Champlain followed in an able argument 
from which we select the following striking paragraphs: 

The learned counsel has been pleased to refer to the subject of 
motive. What is the theory of the motive? The child was obtained 
for the purpose of procuring insurance upon her life. She was car- 
ried to a remote and comparatively secluded place, with a view of 
securing this money. If the motive existed, a predetermined purpose 
to perpetrate this crime must have existed; because, the instant the 
motive fails, then the crime is dismissed with it; and the instant you 
determine by the proof in the case a motive is established, it ceases 
to be the motive unless coupled with the design. By taking the 
child's life and obtaining the money, the motive reflects upon the 
intention, the intention upon the motive. Both throw a perspective 
light forward and back to the period when the crime was committed, 
and tend to demonstrate its actual commission. 



348 HOMICIDE. 

Go with me to Dayton, and trace the history of these people, and 
see if there is a motive. These persons are poor. They are trav- 
eling from place to place; cast hither and thither, why do they seek 
to adopt a child? We know that persons of affectionate disposition 
and in affluent circumstances, persons of kind hearts, often adopt 
children and incorporate them into their families. Here are persons 
whom counsel tells you are driven from pillar to post — why should 
they adopt and add additional burthen to their expense? 

It was not their purpose to incorporate any one into their family 
permanently, and the idea that they intended to add any one to their 
household is dismissed by the fact of their shifting so suddenly from 
the child they first intended to take. You recollect another child had 
been selected, and money sent by the Browns with which to furnish 
some article of apparel. The money was returned with the word 
that the girl was sick, and could not accompany them; and in one 
instant they shift to this little child of Mrs. Stewart. It was not 
affection. It was not love for the first child they intended to take. 
It was policy. It was for some purpose as yet, perhaps, undeveloped. 
In an instant it is arranged that this child Angie is to go and take 
the place of the one they had intended to take. 

Let us view the arrangement under which the child is taken. The 
story of the man is that he is going on with his family, and that his 
wife is to remain at her mother's, in Connecticut, for three months. 
He is to be gone two or three weeks, and then return. If the child 
is homesick, he is to bring it back with him. He says, " Mother, I 
will come back and keep house with you, and keep it well, too." He 
laid out the precise arrangement under which he received the child 
from Mrs. Stewart. They took the child under that arrangement. 
They are to write back, and if the girl is homesick, she is to be 
returned in three weeks; and if not homesick, she is to remain with 
Mrs. Brown for three months. You will remember the awkward 
excuse, as the reason, " that a lady traveling upon the cars is liable 
to insult, and that if a child were along, people would see she was a 
married woman." 

After having compromised Mrs. Stewart sufficiently to gain her 
consent to the child's going along, they present themselves at Cleve- 
land — and where is the first place you hear of them? At an insurance 
office. What are they there for? To insure the life of the child for 
$5,000. How do they insure her? As their daughter. The woman, 
Josephine, signs the application, and it was done in the husband's 
presence, as he did not write. They represent to the insurance agent 
that Mr. Brown is to remain there, and the wife and daughter are to 
travel; that he wants insurance for three months. Why did he take 
the insurance upon the wife? It was to elude suspicion then and 
there. If he had come there to insure the life of his child, and said 
that the child was to travel, an inquiry would have been instituted, 
and he would have had to acknowledge it was to travel with its 



HOMICIDE. 349 

mother, and the question would have arisen, " Why not insure the 
mother?" She was to be exposed to the same dangers as the child; 
and to lull that agent into security, he was obliged to take an insur- 
ance upon the life of his wife. He obtains this insurance under a 
false statement of facts. From the hour he left Dayton he com- 
menced obliterating his tracks. He had agreed to write to Angle's 
mother; but, in order to carry out this plot, he wished to cut ofif all 
communication between the child and mother, and if the plot was 
consummated, in the future no trace would be given by which she 
could find her child. While Mrs. Stewart knew them only as Mr. 
and Mrs. Barney, the insurance had been obtained in the name of 
Brown, and they thereby destroyed the probability of tracing them. 

They stop at Canaan. They there rent a house for a month. Per- 
haps that is well enough as an experiment, but it proves the transitory 
character of their purposes. It proves they have but alighted 
in this village; they hold themselves in readiness for an early de- 
parture. They live there until December. And now here is this 
couple — poor and penniless; birds of passage, resting for a short 
period in this place and that — brought up, at length, in this village. 
He has house, lodging, and abundance of work, and yet, in the dark 
days of December, as the winter is descending from the north, you 
find these people making all the preparations for another departure. 
They are about to leave this village, never to return. 

We will show by the circumstances which surround this case, what 
the purpose was for which they entered upon this plot. A box is 
despatched by express to Granby, Connecticut. It contains more or 
less of the clothing of the wife, some of the prisoner's, and some 
other articles. What else do we see? We find that, on the morning 
of the day of the fire, this woman, in " full dress," takes the cars, 
and goes from Canaan to Chatham. Where is her husband? At 
work at Drowne's. His job is finished at noon. He is seen to go 
into his house with his painter's clothes on, and to come out with 
his " good clothes " on. He goes around to one of the shops and 
talks about gold leaf, and about procuring some to paint sleighs. 
Where is his job of work upon sleighs? Mark this, for it tends to 
show a lie. 

We must proceed cautiously, and exercise our circumspection, and 
weigh it well, and see if we can fathom his motive and design. In 
the evening his wife comes, and he meets her at the railway station. 
They go home and there eat supper. The little girl is at supper with 
them, and in good health. Some time during the evening this woman 
leaves the house, going away alone; and every person knows that 
when these people left that house, they had left it forever; they never 
intended to live there any more. As a habitation for them, they had 
turned their back upon it for the last time. The woman was the 
first to go, and the prisoner was the last person to leave that house 
alive. 



350 HOMICIDE. 

Before proceeding with the history of this extraordinary case, there 
are circumstances to which I will call attention. I have said the 
motive was inseparably connected with the intention, and vice versa. 
Now, note the conversation in the presence of Edna Williams. 
Brown had been negotiating for the purchase of the Buell farm, for 
which the sum of $5,000 is asked. Brown says, " I will show the 
people of Canaan I will have $5,000 in money; " and his wife then 
playfully cuflfed his ears and said, " Yes, Joe, and maybe $10,000." 
Then the conversation about buying the hotel. He was not par- 
ticular as to time; he would pay money down. These transactions 
are coupled inseparably with the obtaining of the child, and the whole 
history of this matter, down to the present time. This woman talks 
to Mrs. Provost, and dilates upon the subject of insurance, telling 
her that her own life is insured — that one could insure anybody's life, 
and get the money when death occurred. It shows what was the 
all-absorbing thought that was revelling in their minds. And did 
you notice how, with a woman's subtlety, she omitted to mention the 
fact that the life of the little girl was insured? 

After reviewing other points to show the connection between 
the motive and the purpose, the Attorney-General continued 
thus: 

If you follow up the evidence, you will see from this instant these 
parties entered upon another course which always indicates crime. 
We have traced them as to the motive and intention as gathered from 
their acts, and we will show you that they entered upon a conceal- 
ment of the crime from the instant of its occurrence. Pretence is 
made that this child is his own; that it is flesh of his flesh, blood of 
his blood. Why does he say this? There is an awful significance in 
the pertinacity with which this man and woman clung together before 
the people of Canaan, and pretended that this man was the father of 
the child. When Brown took the remains of the little girl in that 
box, and delivered them to that old, gray-haired sexton, that secret 
would have been buried with that child; but the rampart of innocence 
with which he had surrounded himself was broken down. So long as 
he could keep people impressed with the belief that this was his 
child, he was safe. He knew that Nature and Nature's God would 
abhor such a crime. That is why he told Mr. Batterson that she was 
his child, and that the mother was a drunken woman whom he had 
left in consequence of her pernicious habits, and that she had died in 
Canada long since. He was bound to impress people that he was 
the real father, and then suspicion would sleep. He felt that the 
tide of generous sympathy would flow, and they would believe his 
innocence. 

The Attorney-General then commented with deserved se- 
verity upon the indecent haste with which the wretches applied 



HOMICIDE. 351 

for the insurance money, before the burial of the child; and 
their deliberate perjury in the affidavits taken before their 
attorney in Westfield, Mass., when making up the preliminary 
proofs under the insurance policy. After a scathing comment 
upon their purpose to conceal the crime, as manifested by 
their conduct and conversation while in jail at Hartford, he 
proceeded: 

We brought him back to Canaan, and towards him, at every step 
of the pathway, is shed back from this fire a reflected glow of guilt. 
Let me call attention to a few of the surrounding circumstances, in 
the order in which they occur upon the night of the fire. This 
woman first goes to Williams's, for a neighborly call. She states that 
her husband came with her, but had stopped at the door to talk with 
a man. That is shown to be false by his own confession to Packard. 
They had never visited at WilHams's before; she had called simply 
on errands. Presently this man presents himself in a hurried manner, 
and remains in the room with the woman. Now an alarm is heard. 
Mr. Drowne was at the fire at the first alarm, and, with the neighbors, 
tried the front door, and finally broke it in, and tore down the 
pantry partition. Where is Brown? After the dead body had been 
discovered and placed upon a blanket outside of the house — after the 
fire was extinguished and everything concluded, Brown is seen com- 
ing towards the house. View his actions when he reaches the place. 
He rushes into the house in the direction of the pantry where this 
body has been found. No needle ever pointed more unerringly to 
the pole than this man, thrown off his guard, pointed to the place 
where he knew these remains had been deposited. 

In the east end of this pantry what do you find? We will not 
consider this case upon what was not seen, but upon what is proved. 
There was found a pile of charred coal, from twelve to eighteen inches 
deep. The heap is measured, and found to contain eight bushels — 
and under that pile is found the charred remains of the little girl. 
The outer door is locked, and the key is gone. The inner door is 
fastened. The door was tried three times and an axe finally was 
brought into requisition. In that pile are unburned pieces of kindling 
wood. The prisoner, speaking through his counsel, says: "This is 
an accidental death; the lamp has exploded; it is easily explained." 
Miss Silvernail swears that a candle was in use that night. Which 
do you believe? 

The lamp is found with its top tightly screwed on. Now, bring 
into the jury-box your experience and knowledge of the analogy of 
things. Suppose she had undertaken to fill this lamp; that it had 
taken fire; what would she have done? The testimony is that her 
clothes were light — a thin, calico dress. With a child's impulse, she 
would have shrieked for help. Apply your common sense and judg- 



352 HOMICIDE. 

ment. It is human nature to call for help. No cry is heard, although 
a house is within twenty-seven feet of this place. To what extent 
was the child's body burned? In your mind's eye bring it before you 
— one-half of the head burned off; face entirely disfigured; the jaw 
easily mashed between the thumb and finger; arms burned off;* one 
lower limb gone; the liver baked. How was this body thus burned? 
The counsel and the accused come with the theory that it was the 
explosion of the lamp; the clothes taking fire; and then the child was 
buried and burned in this heap, and burned in the manner which had 
been described in the report of the autopsy. What an awful, concen- 
trated heat must have been applied to that body, to bake it as it was! 

Where were the pantry shelves? But one or two shelves were left 
upon the west end, while three sides of the pantry had been shelved. 
Where were the missing ones? It shows human agency there. Whose 
hand removed those shelves? Where did this pile of charred coals 
and kindlings come from? These are questions you cannot shake oflf 
under the eloquence of the counsel to-day. 

The pantry door was fastened — I care not how. Beale swears that 
the door would catch at the bottom, and was loose at the top. Who 
fastened it? Human agency again. Who was the architect of this 
ruin? Was it the child? Need she hold up those handless stumps 
to say it was not she? The murderer cut the shelves, and piled up 
the fagots! Closing the pantry door, he fled from the house through 
the cellar door, and betaking himself away with all he possessed in the 
world, awaited the catastrophe. 

Counsel thinks it strange this fire was so long in kindling. Mrs. 
Gordinier passed close to this building. It was dark, and she saw 
an uneven, flickering light. The pantry window was of only three 
panes, and dirty at that. The rain had spattered the dirt up upon the 
window, and that obscured the light. The front part of the house 
was all shrouded in darkness. Why did not the fire burn? The 
pantry door was closed; walls upon three sides; plaster ceiling over- 
head; the fire was smothered and the room filled with smoke. The 
fire struggled, and He who holds the elements in His hand would not 
permit the flame to do the atrocious work it was intended to do. 
The very means the murderer took to conceal his crime was the 
instrument of his detection. The bottoms of the shelves were charred; 
the edges of the cloth were burned, showing fire had been built in 
the room. These are facts, not doubts. 

The last link is complete in the adamantine chain that will drag 
this man to the scaffold. Whether the remains of the dead are dug 
up, even if forty or fifty years have transpired, if but a handful of 
ashes can be found, and there is a suspicion that the deceased died 
by poison, the learned men of their profession will take those ashes 
to the laboratory, and they will demonstrate to you the fact, if poison 
there exists. Let us look at this body. The autopsy describes its 
condition. In all the affairs of life we are compelled to act upon the 



HOMICIDE. 353 

opinion of professional men. Society would not exist unless we 
could do so. Here are physicians who give it as their opinion that 
death ensued before the fire occurred. They have given you the rea- 
sons upon which this opinion is based. Every fact in this case — 
every attempt at concealment of the crime, every intention so far as 
declared — furnishes the most irrefragable proof that the testimony 
given by these physicians is true. 

In the calm and dispassionate charge of Judge Peckham to 
the jury, some of the points thus passed in review were pre- 
sented with additional emphasis. From the closing portions 
of this charge we extract a few paragraphs: 

On the night of this fire the prisoner and his wife were found at 
the dwelling of Mr. Williams, about fifty rods from their house. 
She arrived a little prior to his coming; he follows a few moments 
afterwards, and, as the girl says, came in on a run. They remained 
there, where they never had visited before, up to after the time the 
cry of fire is raised, and then they start for the fire, and the prisoner 
arrives after it is all over with; after the iire was put out; after the 
body was discovered, taken outside, placed upon a blanket, and cov- 
ered up. After he gets there he inquires where his child is, as the 
witnesses say on one side — and I am not aware that there is any con- 
tradiction on that subject — and he leaned over backward, apparently 
fainting. From Brown's manner a suspicion was excited that there 
was something wrong. Beale says he had suspicion of the genuine- 
ness of the fainting, and drew his supporting arm away; and the 
moment he did so Brown clinched hold of him by the collar, to avoid 
falling. It is for you to say how much there was of fainting in that, 
and if he actually did faint, why did he do it? If he was an entirely 
innocent man and the child was not his own, why did he feign faint- 
ing? Did this man deem it proper to feign fainting for the death of 
another child than his own, and for what purpose? 

Then it is said the door was found locked, and why? Why is that 
outside door locked? This little girl, twelve years old, was at home 
engaged in ironing, the day of the fire— what necessity for the out- 
side door being locked? There were neighbors living in the imme- 
diate vicinity. Only twenty feet off a neighbor lived, and all around 
were houses. Why was the door locked, and who locked it? The 
prisoner had just left the house, it is conceded. Why did he lock the 
door when he left it? It is assumed on the part of the prosecution, 
that if any one came to the door too early and sought admission, he 
would suppose the family had gone away, and would go off. If the 
doors were left unlocked, and the fire too soon discovered, why, 
then, if the child were murdered, the crime would be discovered. 

Then, again, not only was the outside door locked, but the next 
door— the pantry door, was fastened. Why was that? There is one 



354 HOMICIDE. 

circumstance to which I deem it important to call your attention, in 
reference to that inner door, although it has been alluded to by both 
counsel. Why was that pantry door fastened? Somebody fastened 
that door; that is to say, somebody put it in that shape, so it would 
stay fastened. Ordinarily, the door would not stay shut at all unless 
the foot was put again«t it and jammed it to. You could not do so 
on the inside. In order to make it stay shut one had to be on the 
outside and put the foot against it. Did the little girl shut it? Could 
she so fasten it from the inside? If she did not do it, gentlemen, who 
did? No matter for what purpose; who did it? The prisoner was 
the last man who went^ out of that house. Did he put his foot against 
that pantry door and press it to before he left that house? Then, 
another fact, gentlemen — and this fact you must answer by your ver- 
dict — the little girl, I apprehend, could hardly have put that door to 
under such circumstances. If she did not do it, who did? If the 
prisoner did, for what purpose did he fasten her in that place? And 
was she alive when she was fastened in there? 

Then, gentlemen, another fact. This child is found in the east end 
of that pantry — which is about three or four feet in width, and the 
same in length — under an amount of rubbish constituting, when put 
in a measure and measured, ei-ght bushels. There is no claim of any- 
thing having been put ill there except the rubbish consequent upon 
the fall of plastering, which accumulated from the knocking of a hole 
into the ceiling above. This plaster ceiling was but a quarter of an 
inch in thickness; and, as the witnesses say, this hole was made only 
for the express purpose of ascertaining whether fire existed in the 
wall. And, considering this circumstance, you will judge how much 
debris would naturally fall down. How was it that this little girl was 
found under that rubbish, so that they dug with an axe for some three 
or four minutes before they discovered the body. How is that? Mr. 
Beale, who carefully examined the mass at the time, says he saw 
pieces of pine board partly charred, some ashes, small bits of lath; 
where did all this come from? Why was it there? And who put it 
there? The window lights were up as high as a man could conven- 
iently reach; and there under them, directly in front of the window, 
was this burning mass and the little girl beneath it. If she was cov- 
ered up with these materials, it is quite clear, I may say, she did not 
cover herself up. 

In addition to this state of facts is the evidence of the physicians. 
Three doctors have reasons, which they consider satisfactory, for 
stating that, in their judgment, the child was dead before burning. 
All three agree in that as a matter of science, giving as their opinion, 
based upon science, examination, and experience, that the child was 
dead, beyond doubt, before she was burned. 

The jury, after a lengthy consultation, found a verdict of 
guilty, and the Court was convened to receive it. The usual 



HOMICIDE. 355 

forms being complied with, and the usual questions put to the 
prisoner, who gave his age as forty-two years, the Judge 
asked: ''Have you anything to say why the sentence of the 
law should not be passed upon you?" Brown replied: "Yes, 
sir. I am not guilty of the crime I am accused of. You have 
passed the verdict, and I suppose you have passed it according 
to your knowledge. You can kill my body, but you cannot 
kill my spirit. Have that in your mind in after-days. That 
is all I have to say, your Honor." 

Judge Peckham then proceeded to sentence Brown^ and 
spoke as follows: 

Well, Brown, that statement will avail you nothing — nothing what- 
ever, you have been fairly tried, and deliberately. You have been 
ably and admirably defended. Your counsel was able and indomit- 
able — he has been untiring in the defense of your case — exhibiting a 
skill and ability I have rarely seen equalled; but the evidence in your 
case is of the clearest and most conclusive character. It satisfied not 
only the jury, but it satisfied the Court and every intelligent mind who 
has listened to it. There can be but one result in this case from the 
undisputed facts. 

You got this little girl on the 17th of September, 1867, from her 
mother, under the pretence of taking her with your wife, or sending 
her with your wife as a companion — ^as a sort of shield to the insults 
of men. Directly afterwards you go to Cleveland from Dayton, Ohio, 
and there get her life insured, with that of your wife — a proceeding 
quite unusal, to insure the life of a little girl for $5,000. Insurance is 
usually effected by men who have families to support and debts to 
pay. And they are taken that their families may not be left in want 
in case their life is lost; but here, what reason was there on earth to 
insure the life of a little girl twelve years old for $5,000? You did 
more. You got her insured in a false name, and a false name was taken 
for no other purpose than to carry out the design with which you 
got her in Dayton. That assumption of a false name was absolutely 
done with a view of cutting of¥ all communication by the mother with 
this child. And then you came on East to Canaan — to this com- 
paratively secluded place in this county, and there located; stayed 
there for a time with your wife, if she be your wife, at the hotel, and 
then took this house. Your policy had three months to run when 
taken out, and within twelve days of its expiration this tragedy 
occurred — after your business was finished — after you had sent your 
little valuables away from that house, and, with your wife, put on 
your best clothes preparatory to the scene you knew was to occur 
that night; and then you had this little girl confined— the little child 
whom you were bound to treat well and kindly, otherwise she could 



356 HOMICIDE, 

complain to the neighbors that you were not in truth her father, and 
the moment that was known and death should occur, you would be 
troubled. Therefore you had to treat her well, as you did doubtless, 
in order to secure her confidence — in order it might not be known 
you were not the father of the child. As the night approached, all 
your things being ready, the first that is seen is your wife goes out 
to a neighbor's house, about half-past six, and in a short time after — 
from fifteen to twenty minutes — you come in, running m, and it is 
obvious why you ran in — perfectly obvious. You had just come from 
the perpetration of the dark deed — from killing this child, and hence 
you came into the house upon a run. In order to escape as soon as 
possible, for fear the fire would occur before you got away, you ran 
into the house after you got there. There is no wonder you did not 
like to go back. And when you got there, after everything had been 
put out, you go back, and with a singular knowledge you directly 
start to where that dead child lay as you supposed. There you 
marched for that place, without anybody saying anything to you, and 
when told to go back, you then — without being charged with the 
commission of crime, except by your own conscience, which called 
upon you to do something to feign great grief — then you assumed to 
faint. And the man upon whose arm you lay, not suspecting you 
were not the father of the child, although he found you feigned faint- 
ing, it was not in the nature of the man, and he could not find it in 
his heart, to reproach the father of the child dead there with being a 
hypocrite. He could not do that, and hence your fainting went on — 
deceiving some, but not all. 

Then they examine this house and find the door locked. The 
reason why you locked it is obvious. You did not want that fire to 
interfere with you too quickly. They find the inner door fastened 
where this little child was burning inside. And it is a singular fact, 
and it seems to be in the order of Providence, that a crime of this 
heinous character could not be committed without its being disclosed. 
You were so foolish as to shut that door to on the outside. The evi- 
dence shows that it was strong evidence against you. The little girl 
could not fasten the door on the inside. Nothing but the application 
of pressure would have closed it to remain shut, and that you did on 
the outside. That shows, the child being on the inside, there was 
something wrong. 

Then you supposed, when you set fire to the funeral pyre, every- 
thing would be consumed and nothing could be left to testify against 
you. Nothing would be left, you supposed, and yet the very course 
you took to conceal the crime was one of the surest means of your 
detection. You piled up the mass of fagots in that little pantry, 
which left in its results nearly eight bushels — six or seven besides 
what fell from the top. It was found on the top of this little girl, 
and of course the child did not cover herself, and no human being 
but you, or your accomplices, was engaged in it 








;^^vl 



II 



^> 



1^^ 






That having been entirely accomplished — the child taken out— you 
then directly proceeded to a vigorous application to business — to get 
your money. 

There is no pretence that anybody else did this thing. No pretence 
whatever. If there was a killing of that child, you alone, and your 
colleague in crime, were the guilty parties. No such murder of the 
child was ever committed except for some great motive, and that 
motive you had. Five thousand dollars was a large sum to you. 
That necessarily directed your action; and then by fraud and perjury 
you proceeded to obtain this money, and the sequel shows your 
detection. 

Under these facts how idle to tell this jury that you are an inno- 
cent man. It is quite idle and useless; and I now say it to you. Brown, 
for the purpose of having you understand that your career on earth 
is closed. To that you must make up your mind. 

The jury recommend you to mercy. Strange as it may be, under 
these appalling facts, they still have the tenderness to recommend you 
to mercy, though you showed none to that child. 

The Court have but one thing to do. There is no power here to 
grant mercy. And I agree with the counsel that, being guilty of the 
offence, no executive will interfere between you and your doom; 
therefore I say in all kindness, your career is substantially closed, 
and you must make up your mind to meet a hereafter. 

Perhaps I ought to say to you, in view of the facts here presented 
— you found these materials — you took off the shelves in that pantry. 
And I am told by the District Attorney indirectly that since the trial, 
by some singular mistake, he omitted to bring into the Court the evi- 
dences he had of these boards comprising the shelves, and being in 
his possession, and did not produce them on this trial. He had them 
for some time, and having them so long in his possession, he forgot 
to produce them. But the case was clear before. No eye could look 
upon it and not know you cut up those shelves to burn up that child 
after you had killed her. 

And now, Brown, it is quite useless for you to deny and turn to 
that jury and say they have done you injustice. You thought by 
this arrangement to escape. You thought, perchance, that fire would 
burn quickly, and the whole thing be consumed — that there would 
not be a trace. Possibly that might have been if there had been a 
strong fire; but the course you took to kill the child was one of the 
reasons that proclaim your guilt. The fire was slow; it was smoth- 
ered, and the consequence was it smouldered while you were waiting 
for the development. 

This, then, is your case. And now it is only left for the Court to 
pass the final sentence of the law upon you, and a very solemn thing 
it is for any tribunal to pass upon the life of a human being. You 
have taken life deliberately and for money — the life of an innocent, 



358 HOMICIDE. 

confiding child, and you must pay your life in consequence. Your 
life must be forfeited. 

The sentence of the Court is that you, Joseph Brown, alias Barney, 
be taken to the common jail in the city of Hudson, in the county of 
Columbia, and that there, within the walls of the jail or within the 
yard, on Saturday, the 30th day of May, between the hours of nine 
o'clock in the morning and one o'clock in the afternoon, you be 
hanged by the neck until you shall be dead. And may God have 
mercy upon you. 

At the conclusion of his sentence, the prisoner remarked, 
" All right." Cool, stoical, and almost indififerent, he bore him- 
self in a manner which some call brave, but which in reality 
was desperate; and showed that a previous career of crime had 
hardened his heart to such an extent that not even the knowl- 
edge that his course was nearly run could move it. 

The sentence was duly carried into execution, at the time, 
place, and in the manner indicated. 

Josephine Brown was indicted as being accessory to the mur- 
der, but the case was never brought to trial. After lying in 
jail several months a nolle pros, was entered by the District 
Attorney, and the greater criminal of the two was allowed to 
go free. 

THE BRANTLEY-ESKRIDGE ROMANCE. 

In the Circuit Court of St. Louis County, Missouri, Feb- 
ruary term, 1871, suit was brought by Mrs. Minerva S. 
Brantley, of Selma, Alabama, against the Travelers Insurance 
Company, for recovery in the sum of $10,000 under an accident 
policy written upon the life of John Harris Brantley, for the 
benefit of plaintiflf in the action. In her complaint, plaintiff 
states that she is now the widow and was the wife of John 
Harris Brantley, who, on the 4th day of December, 1870, was, 
without fault, cause, or provocation, shot and killed by a party 
or parties unknown to her. 

The insurance company, in its answer to the plaintifif's peti- 
tion, admits issuing the policy referred to, and admits that 
Brantley was killed on the 4th day of December, 1870, but 
denies that the shooting and killing was not the fault of the 
plaintiff. " And for a further answer to plaintiff's petition, de- 
fendant alleges, that prior to the execution of the policy of 



HOMICIDE. 359 

insurance upon which this suit is brought, the plaintiff and one 
Joseph N. Eskridge unlawfully and wickedly agreed, conspired 
and confederated together to cheat, swindle, and defraud de- 
fendant out of the sum of money in said poHcy mentioned; and 
that, with that purpose in view and to that end, a secret agree- 
ment, understanding, and conspiracy was entered into between 
plaintiff and the said Eskridge, whereby an insurance for a 
large amount was to be effected and procured upon the life of 
said Brantley in defendant's company and in other insurance 
companies for the benefit of the plaintiff; and that during the 
continuance and life of said policies of insurance so obtained 
by them, the said Brantley should be assassinated and killed, 
or his life taken in some other violent manner, and after the 
recovery of the amounts for which the life of said Brantley was 
insured, plaintiff and the said Eskridge should share their ill- 
gotten gains with each other. . . . That on or about the 2d 
day of December, 1870, and pursuant to said agreement and 
conspiracy entered into as aforesaid, between plaintiff and the 
said Eskridge, he, the said Eskridge, at the solicitation and 
request of plaintiff, left his home in Selma, in the State of 
Alabama, armed with a shot-gun, and proceeded to Shuqualak, 
in the State of Mississippi, where the said Brantley then was; 
that said Eskridge reached said town of Shuqualak on the 
morning of December 4, 1870, and after learning upon inquiry 
that said Brantley was at the railroad station of said town of 
Shuqualak, he, the said Eskridge, proceeded to said station, 
and then and there, pursuant to said agreement and conspiracy 
between plaintiff and Eskridge, brutally assassinated, shot and 
killed the said Brantley." 

This answer of the defendant insurance company to the 
plaintiff's petition has no uncertain sound, no equivocal word- 
ing. If the allegations therein were true, the plaintiff richly 
deserved the extreme penalty of the law; if not true, the de- 
fendant could not be punished too severely for preferring such 
an accusation of crime. 

An early investigation of the facts and circumstances sur- 
rounding this case was entered upon, and a commission to take 
depositions in the cause quickly followed. It was learned that 
General Brantley, the father of John Harris Brantley, the in- 



360 HOMICIDE. 

sured, was a wealthy planter, formerly residing in the vicinity 
of Selma, Alabama. He possessed large landed and personal 
estates, and before the emancipation held an extensive property 
in slaves. His family, a few months before his death, consisted 
of three sons and one daughter, the latter a young widow. 
John was the oldest son, and had passed the age of forty 
years. He was married, but had no children. He had been 
devoted to pleasure and vice while a young man, had spent large 
sums in dissipation, and had incurred heavy liabilities, which his 
father had to provide for. This state of affairs so exhausted 
the patience and forbearance of the old gentleman (who died 
in 1869) that he cut off the prodigal from further benefits. 
More than a year prior to his death he conveyed, by deeds, all 
his property to his two younger sons and his daughter, leaving 
John wholly unprovided for. At the time the property was 
deeded away John was living with his wife near Pensacola, 
Florida, and had neither business, property, nor credit. Soon 
after these conveyances had been recorded he returned to the 
Brantley plantation, and had an ugly quarrel with his father 
and family. He sought legal advice, and employed General 
John T. Morgan as his counsel. At the earnest request of 
the father a compromise was effected by settling about five hun- 
dred acres of land upon Minerva, John's wife, the plaintiff in 
the action against the insurance company. 

Eventually, a young man named J. P. Howard, who had lost 
an arm in the Confederate service, came to live on a plantation 
adjoining the plantation of John H. Brantley and his wife 
Minerva. From causes incidentally growing out of the family 
feud referred to, Howard and John H. Brantley were on un- 
friendly terms. To such a point did Brantley's hostility finally 
increase, that he threatened the life of Howard, and they both 
went armed for each other, expecting an encounter at any time. 

In the spring of 1869 Howard and Brantley became involved 
in one or two quarrels, and a few days afterwards Howard was 
found dead in a swamp about a mile distant from Brantley's 
house. A jury of inquest was held upon the dead body, and 
the finding of the jur\^ was that Howard came to his death 
from wounds inflicted by a shot-gun in the hands of some per- 
son to the jury unknown, but, from the evidence, suspicion 



HOMICIDE. 361 

strongly attached to John H. Brantley, The coroner issued a 
warrant upon the finding, and Brantley w^s arrested and taken 
before a Justice of the Peace for a preliminary examination. 
General Morgan was Brantley's counsel at this time. Brantley 
was bound over in a bond of $10,000 to appear at the next 
term of the City Court for Selma, Dallas County, Alabama, to 
answer an indictment to be found by the grand jury. 

When brought into Court, however, the indictment was 
quashed, on motion of General Morgan, the prisoner's attor- 
ney, on the ground that it was found by the grand jury, upon 
evidence taken by the committing magistrate at the time of pre- 
liminary examination, and without any other evidence. The 
laws of Alabama required the judge, in a case where an indict- 
ment was quashed, to hold the accused in custody or require 
him to give bail to answer a new indictment for the same 
offence. The judge, who was not a lawyer by profession, dis- 
regarded the law in this respect, and made no order at that 
time to hold the defendant Brantley in custody, or to require 
bail to answer to a new indictment; nor did the solicitor make 
any motion for such an order. Immediately after the indict- 
ment was quashed, Brantley, upon hasty consultation apart 
with his attorney, walked out of the court-house and made his 
escape. He went directly to the railway station, where he took 
the cars for Meridian, Miss. Changing cars at Meridian, he 
went north on the Mobile and Ohio Railroad to a small place 
known as Shuqualak, where he quietly took up his abode. 
While there he was in correspondence with his counsel, as will 
appear by the following letter, which was produced in evidence 
by the defendant in the course of the suit: 

Selma, Nov. 5th, 1869. 
Mr. John H. Brantley: 

Dear Sir — I hear nothing said now about your case. I don't 
know that any bill has been found, but the stir that was made about 
the matter during the Circuit Court leaves no doubt in my mind that 
the bill was found. The studied secrecy of their movements is such 
that I think they mean mischief. You ought to settle at some place 
where you will be content to live, and will not be likely to be dis- 
turbed, so that you can go to work and build up. I cannot think it 
safe for you to return to Alabama, nor to live so close as in Mis- 
sissippi. Yours, truly, 

Jno. T. Morgan. 



362 HOMICIDE. 

After Brantley's escape the matter was again brought before 
the grand jury, and it was generally believed that an indictment 
was found. The following letter, which was proved to be in 
the handwriting of Gen. Morgan, alludes to this subject, and 
also to the Brantley family feud: 

Mrs. Brantley: 

Dear Madam — Write to Mr. Brantley that I have information I 
believe to be reliable, that the grand jury have found a bill against 
him. I feel satisfied also that his place of abode is known. It may 
be (and I believe it probable) that persons interested will try to find 
him. I need not advise you what to do in the matter. 

I wish to see you soon in reference to a claim of your husband's 
against his father's estate. I am inclined to take steps to collect it 
if it can be done. Very respectfully, 

Sept. i8, 1869. Jno. T. Morgan. 

Mrs. Brantley fon\^arded General Morgan's letter enclosed 
in the following letter written to her husband: 

My Darling Husband— After writing you yesterday morning I 
received the enclosed note from General Morgan in the evening, 
which I send to you immediately for you to act upon. It is just what 
I have been expecting. I cannot at present advise you what course 
to take, only for mercy's sake keep on the lookout and out of the 
way. I believe, as General Morgan does, that it is known where you 
are. I will go in and see Morgan to-morrow, and advise with him as 
to what is best for you to do. Your devoted wife, 

M. B. 

The result of Mrs. Brantley's interview with her legal adviser 
is made known in the following letter addressed to her husband: 

My Dear Husband — I saw Morgan to-day, and his advice to you 
is for you to change your abode until we can see or find out if a war- 
rant will be issued immediately for your arrest. He says you 7nust 
not let theiri arrest you, and do not let any one know where you 
are for the present, and by all means keep away from the railroad. 

I would try and have it arranged with the sheriff where you are, 
not to arrest you nor let you be arrested if he receives any war- 
rant; but you must be cautious how he is approached, for there is 
great danger of it getting out, as he might let it be known up here 
that you are down there. We will soon know what they intend doing, 

and then I will advise you as to what is best to be done 

Your true and devoted 

Wife. 



HOMICIDE. 363 

That Mrs. Brantley appears to have continued actively alert 
is evident by her letters to her husband during this period of 
his voluntary exile. She sends him little comfort in the fol- 
lowing letter: 

My Darling Husband .... I understand Howard's brother has 
written to some one here, inquiring about your case, and is going 
to revive the case again, and says he is determined to find out who 
killed his brother. I do not know how true it is, but I am going 
to find out more about the matter, and will let you know. There is 
no mistake about the fact that we have secret enemies here who are 
working to do us all the harm they can; but I am on the lookout 
for them, and keep prepared for them. You need not give yourself 
any unnecessary alarm about this matter, but only be prepared and 
keep away from the cars. Some one here was making inquiries 
about my absence; wanted to know where I was and how long I 
was going to stay, and if I had gone to see you. But it is of no use 
for them to try to find out my movements, for I am too prudent and 
too cautious for them. I tell everybody you are in Texas. I am 
sometimes fearful that your whereabouts may be found out. If I 
were you I would live as secluded as possible and not go to town 
often, for there is always some one on the cars from Selma. With 
much love. " Your devoted wife, 

M. S. B. 

The reader will remember that the insurance company, in its 
answer to the plaintiff's petition, alleges that Mrs. Brantley 
wickedly conspired and confederated with one Joseph N. Esk- 
ridge to cheat and defraud the company; and to that end they 
effected a large sum of insurance upon the life of Brantley, and 
then, pursuant to the secret agreement and conspiracy between 
them, they brutally assassinated him. This Mr. Eskridge, 
who was destined to play so conspicuous a part in the out- 
growth of the tragic affair of which mention has been made, 
was a young man of pleasing address, and of more than ordi- 
narily fine appearance, at the time of these occurrences. He 
had been a merchant's clerk in Selma, and ultimately opened a 
store of his own; but, having more beauty than brains, his mer- 
cantile career soon ended in bankruptcy. He was married to 
a young woman of good family, who owned and resided upon 
a plantation adjoining the Brantley Place. After his failure in 
business he returned to this plantation with his family, con- 
sisting of his wife and two children, and was residing there at 



364 HOMICIDE. 

the time of the Brantley feud. While Brantley was under 
indictment for the murder of Howard, and was secretly hiding 
from justice, Eskridge appears to have been on terms of affec- 
tionate intimacy with Mrs. Brantley. This lady was of that 
rare type of personal beauty found only in those possessing a 
fair complexion, light golden hair, and lustrous black eyes. In 
features and form she was strikingly beautiful, and she is 
described as being brilliant in conversation, fascinating in her 
manners, and of a very affectionate disposition. By practical 
people she was considered too sentimental. Eskridge was 
about two years older than Mrs. Brantley, and it appears in 
evidence that these pretty counterparts sympathetically gravi- 
tated towards each other. Mrs. Brantley's husband was not 
only under indictment for murder, but by reason of his riotous 
living, his long continued excesses, his pecuniary and family 
troubles, he had become prematurely old. Although but little 
more than forty years of age, he was very gray, and though 
formerly stout and robust, he was now sallow, lean, gaunt, and 
shrunken away. Broken down with protracted dissipation, he 
presented the appearance of at least sixty years. 

While Brantley was a fugitive from justice and Mrs. Brantley 
was residing on her plantation (the five hundred acres pre- 
viously mentioned), Eskridge was at his wife's plantation, about 
two miles distant from Mrs. Brantley's house. Gradually a 
suspicious intimacy grew up between them. We learn in the 
evidence of a brother-in-law of Eskridge, that during the sum- 
mer of 1870 Eskridge was neglecting his family and spending a 
great deal of his time at Mrs. Brantley's place and in her com- 
pany. This witness and another brother-in-law of Eskridge, 
named Collens, talked the matter over, and witness advised 
Collens to remonstrate with Eskridge and persuade him to put 
a stop to his intimacy with Mrs. Brantley; that persistence in 
his misconduct would bring disgrace upon the whole family, 
as everybody in the neighborhood was talking about it. This 
gossip coming to the knowledge of the virtuous lady, she was 
prompted to write and send to the witness the following out- 
burst of indignation: 

John H. McIlwaine: 

I understand you have been slandering me in the grossest manner. 
I warn you that my husband is much nearer than you are aware of, 



HOMICIDE. 365 

and when you least expect it he will hold you personally responsible 
for the base, malicious lies that you are circulating about me. My 
husband is fully aware of all my actions and movements, and fully 
approves them. ^ M. S. Brantley. 

Oct. 28, 1870. 

The hollowness of this lady's pretence was fully exposed by 
witnesses of a criminal intimacy. An old and faithful family 
servant, Willis, in the course of his testimony made very dam- 
aging revelations, but they are too voluminous to reproduce 
from the record. We have only room for brief reference to 
some of the material points. He testified that in driving Mrs. 
Brantley in her carriage to Selma, Eskridge constantly rejoined 
and accompanied her, meeting and parting with unrestrained 
and significant demonstrations in the presence of the witness; 
that sometimes Eskridge called with his buggy and took Mrs. 
Brantley riding, and that even in the streets of Selma they were 
reckless as to any concealment of their guilty attachment; that 
upon a certain occasion, when they were detected in the woods 
in flagrante delicto, Eskridge purchased the silence of witness 
with a bribe. Willis had lived in the Brantley family from his 
birth, and had been their slave for many years. He was de- 
votedly faithful to his mistress, but he felt it his duty (as he 
says in his evidence) to remonstrate with her upon her growing 
shamelessness, whereupon Eskridge threatened his life with a 
pistol. Upon the restoration of amicable relations, Eskridge 
declared to Willis that " he loved Mrs. Brantley, and would 
die for her, and would not give her up for her husband or any 
one else." Confidence between the couple and Willis having 
been re-established, he was sent to Mississippi, to bear to John 
H. Brantley some lying messages, and to make the false plea 
of sickness in excuse of Mrs. Brantley's failure to rejoin her 
husband in his exile, in accordance with a promised arrange- 
ment. 

Another witness, produced and examined on the part of the 
defendant in the suit, says he is related to John H. Brantley — 
deponent's father and Brantley's mother having been brother 
and sister. Deponent learned from another relative that John 
H. Brantley was in Mississippi, and that a letter addressed to 
Doctor Murdock, at Shuqualak, Miss., would reach him. It 



366 HOMICIDE. 

was a common report in Selma that Eskridge and Mrs. 
Brantley were living in adulterous intimacy, and that they fre- 
quently occupied a room in the south end of what was once 
known as the Weaver Carriage House. Deponent saw Esk- 
ridge going into and coming out of that room, and noticed 
that he habitually locked the door when he came out. Witness 
wrote a note to Mrs. Brantley in the fall of 1870, and told her 
that he knew of her course of conduct, and that he intended to 
write her husband, informing him of what she was doing. He 
folded this note and pushed it through the keyhole of the door 
of the room in the carriage house at a time when Mrs. Brantley 
and Eskridge were in the room. Afterwards he did write to 
Brantley and told him in the letter of the improper intercourse 
between his wife and Eskridge, as reported by common rumor, 
and directed the letter to Dr. Murdock, Shuqualak, Miss. 
Soon after this witness met Eskridge, who called to him and 
said, " I understand you have made some threats against me." 
Witness replied to him, " I have not, but as Brantley has killed 
one man in the dark, he can kill another in the same way." 

Upon receipt of the letter in question, Brantley determined 
to see his wife at all hazards. It appears from the evidence of 
Adeline, a house-servant of Mrs. Brantley, that Brantley came 
home one Friday night after dusk. Mrs. Brantley was not at 
home. She had left her house that day in Eskridge's carriage, 
saying to witness she was going to town. Eskridge was not 
with her; his waiting-boy drove the carriage. On Mr. Brant- 
ley's unexpected arrival, witness prepared supper for him. He 
immediately inquired for his wife, and witness told him that 
" Miss Minerva " had left home that day, saying she was going 
to Selma. He then asked when she was coming back. Witness 
told him she did not know. He said he very much wanted to 
see his wife, and that he had come a long way for that purpose. 
He remained at the house during Friday night and all day 
Saturday, and on his expressing anxiety to remain undiscov- 
ered, witness carefully kept the doors shut and allowed no one 
to see him except Elbert Sevier, the brother of his wife. In 
response to his wishes, Elbert went after his wife, but he 
returned in due time with the intelligence that Mrs. Brantley 
would not come — that she was afraid to come. Mr. Brantley 



HOMICIDE. 387 

went away some time during Saturday night. His wife re- 
turned home in the course of the following week, in company 
with Mr. Eskridge. 

These facts and various others, which were elicited during 
the trial, were corroborated by another colored house-servant, 
named Hannah. 

Brantley was devotedly attached to his wife, and whatever 
suspicions may have been aroused in his mind towards the 
latter part of 1870, it is certain that he was wholly blinded to 
her misconduct during the earlier portion of that year. At 
that time he appears to have placed unbounded confidence in 
his wife's friend Eskridge, who tendered his assistance in 
numerous little matters pertaining to the family feud, and he 
empowered Eskridge to execute, as attorney, some important 
trusts. His fond and loving wife continued to send him letters 
overflowing with affection and sympathy for him in his exile. 
She also supplied him with money from her limited resources. 
From among the numerous letters produced in the course of 
the trial, the following may serve as a specimen, showing with 
what readiness Mrs. Brantley could use her pen. Usually her 
letters are exceedingly lengthy, and therefore only extracts 
therefrom are here given: 

My Darling Husband: 

I have been quite ill since I returned home, but am improving, yet 
suffering greatly from an overdose of quinine. You don't know 
how dreadfully quinine affects me. I am determined never to take 
another dose if I know it. I was "like a crazy person 

I long for the time to come when I will be able to sell out here and 
leave this hateful country forever. I am growing to hate this place 
and people more and more every day. They have no sympathy for 
any one that has no money and is in trouble, but seem to do every- 
thing they can to put one down. We have not a real, true friend 
here. I am resolved to sell out next winter and move to some other 
country; so you may be on the lookout for a home for me. What is 
life to you and me but a burden in the way we have to live? for no 
one cares for us. If we expect any happiness in the future we must 
find it within ourselves, to try and make each other happy. It makes 
me miserable to think what a lonely life you have to live, and I am 
determined to share your future with you after this summer, come 
what may. For, after all, my dorling, a man's truest and best friend 
is his wife, and I can say truly that I am the truest and best friend 
you have on earth. If the whole world forsakes you, I will cling 



368 HOMICIDE. 

ever the closer to you. All my acts and efforts are for you and your 
happiness, and you can ever rest assured, my dear husband, that in 
me you have one faithful and devoted friend who will ever be ready 
to make any sacrifice for you. My life is a sad one, with nothing 
but trouble and sorrow, and I have so much to discourage and dis- 
hearten me; yet amidst it all I feel it cannot last so always — that the 
time will come when I can have some rest from the sorrows and 
troubles of this life. And it is this cheerful hope that sustains and 
supports my drooping heart amidst all our afflictions. I am resolved 
never to give up in despair, but will fight it out like a brave soldier, 

if I die at my post 

I will send you some clothes, or the money, if I can get any, when- 
ever you wish. With much love, your devoted wife, 

M. S. B. 

With all her alleged sentimentality and her complete surren- 
der to a blind infatuation, Mrs. Brantley appears to have been 
of a shrewd business turn of mind. At that time the agricul- 
tural interest of the neighborhood w^as productive of very little 
ready money, and her cash income was by no means adequate 
to her wants. Her friend Eskridge was always impecunious, 
and so they put their heads together to contrive a scheme for 
supplying themselves with money. Their attention was finally 
drawn to the practicabilities of life insurance as a means 
through which they might further their purposes. 

An attorney-at-law residing in Selma, being examined on the 
part of the defendant insurance company, deposed that he had 
a lengthy conversation with Eskridge on the subject of life 
insurance, early in the year 1870. Eskridge came into depo- 
nent's office and began a conversation on life insurance gen- 
erally. After talking on this subject for a while, he asked if a 
life insurance company could be made to pay a policy upon the 
life of a fugitive from justice which was taken out while he was 
hiding from the law, and was afterwards caught and hung. 
Deponent told him that if the fact that he was a fugitive from 
justice was concealed from the company, they would not be 
bound to pay; but that if the company took the risk knowing 
all the facts, in deponent's opinion it would be bound. He 
then said he was trying to get a policy on the life of John H. 
Brantley, for the benefit of Brantley's wife. He inquired how 
to obtain the application, and how to comply with the requisite 
forms. He said at that time Brantley was in Mississippi con- 
cealing himself from an indictment for murder. 



HOMICIDE. 369. 

Having formed a definite plan of operation, Eskridge set 
about obtaining insurance on the life of Brantley for the benefit 
of Brantley's wife. In doing this he seems to have disregarded 
the advice of his attorney touching the concealment of facts. 
An application for $10,000 insurance in the Life Association 
of America was made, dated April 25, 1870. This application 
was forwarded to the head office of that company May 26th. 
The policy in return reached Selma June 14th, but as Eskridge 
could not then obtain the money, the first premium was not 
paid and policy delivered until June 30th. It appears in evi- 
dence that Eskridge applied for a loan to a personal friend, a 
gentleman with whom he had been associated in business for- 
merly, who, being examined on the part of the defendant, 
deposed and said: 

Eskridge came to my office and stated to me that Mrs. Minerva 
S. Brantley had been over to Mississippi, and had had her husband 
sign an application to have his life insured; that the application had 
been approved and the poHcy was now ready for delivery as soon as 
the premium was paid. He further stated that Mrs. Brantley was 
exceedingly anxious to obtain the policy on the life of her husband, 
because he was a man of such habits that his life was uncertain, and 
that it was absolutely essential that the premium should be paid at 
once; that Mrs. Brantley had made application to her merchants for 
money to pay the premium, and they had refused to advance it to 
her; that he, Eskridge, had come to me to get me to advance a suffi- 
cient amount of money to pay the premium for Mrs. Brantley. I 
refused at first to advance the money. On a second application by 
him for the money, he having offered additional security, and binding 
himself personally to see it paid, I advanced the money to him. 

Subsequently to the time of obtaining the life policy, Mrs. 
Brantley and Eskridge called at the Selma office of the Trav- 
elers Insurance Company for the purpose of obtaining an acci- 
dent policy upon John H. Brantley. Upon making known 
their wish they were furnished by the agent with a blank form 
of application, and with the usual instructions. Some days 
afterward they both called again at the agent's office and pre- 
sented the application duly filled out and signed by Brantley. 
On the same day, August 25, 1870, an accident policy in the 
sum of $10,000 was written, but it was not delivered until two 
days afterwards, when Mrs. Brantley returned to the agent's 
office, paid the premium, and obtained the policy under which 
the suit was brought. 



370 HOMICIDE. 

Eskridge had now secured $2o,ocxd insurance upon the life 
of Brantley, so that in the event of his death by violence his 
disconsolate widow would be furnished with material aid and 
comfort. 

About this time ^Irs. Brantley addressed the following letter 
to her husband: 

At Home, August 14th. 

My Darling Husband — I have received several letters from you 
and regret that you seem to attribute my not writing to indifference; 
but let me assure you that it is not true. I have been waiting for 
the last week to see General Morgan. A few days after you left he 
went to see his family, and not being well when he left, I expect he 
is sick, as he has not returned as yet. I cannot get any money until 
he returns. I am exceedinglj' anxious to see you and will certainly 
come if I can get the money. I am delighted to learn that you are 
so pleasantly situated, and that you are with kind friends. I felt so 
anxious about you for fear that you would give way to gloomy feel- 
ings and low spirits. I hope that you will be cheerful, although it 
is awful to be separated in this way. I hope that the worst is over, 
and that soon we will be united again. I feel so thankful that you 
escaped in the way you did, and that it was no worse. Everybody 
thinks you are cleared for good. A negro man who belonged to 
Griffen was caught, and he confessed that he had killed five men in 
the swamp. He said he did not know their names. Everybody 
believes that he was the one who killed all those who were murdered 
in the swamp. 

We are well; my health is improving. No cotton worms yet; no 
news. I w^ill write just as soon as I have seen Morgan. I will let 
you know if I can come. You know that I will come if I can, for 
you are the dearest object of life to me, and the only one I love and 
think most of, and would rather be with. 

Write me often, and believe me 

Your devoted wife, 

M. S. B. 

It will be obser\^ed that this devoted wife no longer alarms 
her husband with fears of his arrest, and no longer advises his 
flight to a place of greater seclusion and less danger. The 
occasion for this change in the tone of her letters may be 
accounted for in the evidence of the State's Attorney, who was 
examined on the part of the defendant. In his evidence in the 
suit he says: 

I began to act as solicitor in September, 1869, and have been acting 
ever since. During that time there was pending against John H. 



HOMICIDE. 371 

Brantley, in the Circuit Court of Dallas County, an indictment for 
the murder of one Howard. Joseph N. Eskridge called at my office 
to see me, the subject of his conversation being the laying of plans 
for the arrest of Brantley. He gave me the address of the brother 
and the brother-in-law of the man Howard, for the murder of whom 
Brantley was indicted, and asked me to write to them to know if 
one or the other of them would meet a friend in Meridian, Miss. 
He cautioned me not to mention his name to them, but ask them to 
meet a friend there, and he told me that he would be that friend. 
He told me to tell them to name the day and the hotel at which this 
friend should meet them, and that this friend would give them the 
information and assist them in the means to arrest Brantley; and he 
told me that when they arrested him and brought him here, he, Esk- 
ridge, would give me the name of a witness that would hang him. 
I wrote the letters as requested, and made the appointment, which 
Howard's brother and brother-in-law failed to keep on account of 
sickness, as they subsequently informed me. When Eskridge left 
me, at the end of this interview, he went directly across the street 
from my office, to Mrs. Minerva S. Brantley, who was standing in 
an alley on the opposite side of the street, walking about, apparently 
waiting for some one. When Eskridge came up to her he com- 
menced talking, without any salutaticn, and they walked off down the 
alley together, still talking to each other. They walked into a vacant 
lot on the side of this alley, to Mrs. Brantley's carriage, and drove 
off in the direction of Mrs. Brantley's house. On another occasion 
after tkis, Eskridge came to see me at my office, when I informed 
him of the failure of the appointment with Howard's brother and 
brother-in-law. This information was given in reply to Eskridge's 
question asking me " why those fellows had not come to time." He 
asked me to arrange another appointment with the same men for the 
same purpose. When he left my office, I watched him, because of 
having observed his going to Mrs. Brantley at the end of the pre- 
vious interview. On this occasion he went directly to the street 
corner diagonally across from my office, where he met Mrs. Brantley. 
About fifteen minutes afterwards he rode out of town in a carriage 
with Mrs. Brantley, in the direction of Mrs. Brantley's home. On 
another occasion after this he came to my office and conversed with 
me on the subject of arresting Brantley, and when he left the office 
he went straight down the street and met Mrs. Brantley on the street. 
They commenced talking, without any salutation, and walked off down 
the street together. Pending these arrangements for the arrest of 
Brantley, Eskridge came to my office frequently to inquire how I was 
getting along with the arrangements, and whenever he saw me on 
the streets he would speak to me about it. He manifested great 
anxiety to have Brantley arrested by the relatives of Howard, and 
appeared to be very restless and uneasy about it. He frequently cau- 
tioned me not to let it be known that he had anything to do with 



372 HOMICIDE. 

the arrest of Brantley, or that he was giving information about it. 
On one occasion Eskridge told me that there was only one other 
person who knew that he had anything to do with getting up infor- 
mation and making arrangements for the arrest of Brantley. The 
second appointment at Meridian failed also. Eskridge came a short 
time afterwards and inquired why the brother and brother-in-law of 
Howard had not kept their appointment at Meridian. This was a 
short time before the death of Brantley. 

It is evident that Eskridge did not seek to have Brantley 
arrested merely, and brought to justice; for that could have 
been effected quite as easily without as with the assistance of 
the brother or brother-in-law of the murdered Howard. On 
the contrary, it is apparent that his object was to have the arrest 
made by or in the presence of the Howard relatives, and under 
such circumstances as would render it probable that Brantley 
would offer resistance, which would afford a pretext for shoot- 
ing him. Such an act would enable the Howards to revenge, 
with safety to themselves, the murder of their brother by 
Brantley; and by the same act Mrs. Brantley would become a 
claimant for the $20,000 insurance money. 

The failure of the Howards to keep their appointment with 
Eskridge defeated the original purpose of the two conspirators, 
and led them to adopt other schemes for the accomplishment 
of their purpose. They re-arranged their plans and resolved 
to do the bloody deed themselves. By a preconcerted arrange- 
ment, Mrs. Brantley and Eskridge were to meet in Demopolis, 
a place about twenty-seven miles distant from Selma, on the 
railroad running from that city to Meridian, Miss. Mrs. 
Brantley went by cars, while Eskridge rode through the coun- 
try on his own horse, a handsome iron-gray thoroughbred, 
which he took for the purpose. The day before he left his 
home he sent Mrs. Brantley a note written in the following 
words : 

My Dearest One — I enclose you $25, which, I presume, is as much 
as you wish till I see you in Demopolis. Be prompt, my dearest one. 
God bless and protect you, my darling, till you join your 

DEVOTED BOY. 

The guilty pair arrived at a hotel in Demopolis, where they 
fully matured their plans. Eskridge, who was to personally 



HOMICIDE. 373 

attend to the killing of Brantley, in pre-arranging to prove an 
alibi, and also to account for his absence from home, wrote a 
letter to O. F. Harrill, in Selma, which letter is post-marked 
Demopolis, and reads as follows: 

Dear Sir — I am compelled to be gone for a few weeks on busi- 
ness and to recruit my health, which is very bad at present. There 
are some little balances still due by the tenants on the Swift place, of 
which I will send you a memorandum. ... I will be back between 
this and Christmas. Yours truly, 

J. N. ESKRIDGE. 

In furtherance of their plans, Mrs. Brantley wrote a letter to 
her husband, dating it " At Home," although it was mailed and 
postmarked Demopolis, requesting him to meet her on the 
morning of the 4th of December, at the Shuqualak railway 
station, on the arrival of the early up train. This letter was 
afterwards found on the dead body of Brantley. In Demopolis 
they both were strangers and attracted no particular attention 
at the time. They occupied a room at the hotel as husband 
and wife, announcing themselves as such. When they were 
ready to leave, they hired a conveyance to drive to Livingston, 
Sumter County, Alabama. Eskridge and Mrs. Brantley occu- 
pied the conveyance together, while a boy accompanied them, 
riding Eskridge's horse. Reaching Livingston, they stopped 
at a public house there kept by Mrs. Lockard, who, being 
produced on the part of the defendant in the insurance suit, 
testified as follows: 

About the ist or 2d of December, 1870, a gentleman came to my 
hotel in company with a lady. They drove up in a carriage together; 
a boy was attending to them, riding a very fine iron-gray horse 
belonging to the gentleman. The horse was retained here and the 
carriage sent back, with the boy, to Demopolis. The gentleman reg- 
istered their names as " Joseph N. Eskridge and lady," and said they 
had come up from Demopolis and wanted to go to the nearest sta- 
tion, from this place, on the Mobile and Ohio Railroad, above 
Meridian. I directed them to Gainesville Junction as the nearest 
point by private conveyance, through the country, about twenty-five 
miles distant from my hotel. I advised them to go by rail from 
Meridian, but they objected, saying they desired to avoid that place. 
They remained as guests at my hotel during two nights and one day. 
They represented themselves as man and wife, and occupied the same 
apartment. His attentions were remarkably affectionate and tender 



374 ' HOMICIDE. 

towards her, and the waiters called them " the loving couple." This 
gentleman and lady remained in their room nearly all the time during 
the day, except at meal hours. They walked out on the streets both 
evenings, and remained out about an hour the last night of their 
stay. That night, when they returned from their walk, they brought 
back with them a new double-barrelled shot-gun. 

Important testimony was also furnished by William Kirk- 
land, keeper of a livery stable in Livingston. He stated 
that on the 2d day of December, 1870, Joseph N. Eskridge, 
whom he had formerly known for many years, came to Liv- 
ingston in a wagon belonging to Mr. Breitling, in Demopolis. 
A very handsome lady, unknown to witness, accompanied 
him. He brought with him a fine, iron-gray horse, which 
witness stabled and fed. Being acquainted with Eskridge, 
witness asked him who the lady was, but he would not tell, 
and evaded every question about her. 

A merchant, doing business in Livingston, brought out a 
material fact in the course of his evidence. Said he, " To the 
best of my recollection, between the ist and 3d of December, 
1870, a strange gentleman came into my store, and selected a 
double-barrelled shot-gun, the price of which was $25, and at 
his request, it was laid aside for him, he stating that he would 
call for it. He came the next night, in company with a lady 
w^hom he called ' dearest,' and asked for the gun, and the lady 
paid for it. She, upon examining the gun, remarked that it 
was a very nice one and would do, as they wanted to use it 
about two months, and then could sell it to the freedmen for 
the amount they gave for it. They took the gun and left the 
store, it being then about nine o'clock at night. This lady was 
tall and slender, had black eyes, fair complexion, light hair, 
and wore a diamond ring. The gentleman was about five 
feet seven or eight inches high, good-looking, hair short and 
inclined to be gray." 

Eskridge procured a carriage at Kirkland's stable, on the 
morning of the 3d of December, for the use of which he paid 
Kirkland $10 to go to Gainesville Junction, a station on the 
Mobile and Ohio Railroad. A son of Kirkland went with 
them, riding Eskridge's horse, and brought the carriage back 
from the Junction. The party arrived at Gainesville Junction 
before noon of that day, and stopped at a small hotel kept by 



HOMICIDE. 375 

Reuben S. Parks. At the time of their arrival, Mrs. Brantley 
was in the carriage, and Eskridge was riding his horse. Esk- 
ridge dismounted and assisted Mrs. Brantley to alight from 
the carriage, while a son of Mr. Parks, the landlord, took Esk- 
ridge's horse. They went into the hotel and upstairs to a 
room, where they remained together some two or three hours. 
In the course of the afternoon Eskridge's horse was saddled 
for departure. He mounted and rode over to the depot, where 
he dismounted and asked Allen Parks, the boy who had 
received his horse on arrival, to hold his horse and a bundle, 
while he went into the depot office. Allen testifies that while 
he was in charge of the bundle, during Eskridge's absence in 
the depot office, he examined it, and found it to be a double- 
barrelled shot-gun, unstocked and wrapped in a blanket. Esk- 
ridge inquired of the depot agent the nearest way to Shu- 
qualak. He was directed in reply to ride upon the railroad 
track to a station five miles north, where he would strike the 
dirt-road leading to Shuqualak, and could there get further 
direction. He at once rode off up the railroad as directed, 
with the bundle containing the shot-gun across his lap. 

Shuqualak, the place where Brantley had remained so long 
in concealment, is about twenty-five miles north from Gaines- 
ville Junction, and Eskridge arrived there some time during 
the evening of the day he left the Junction. It appears that 
Brantley, that evening about ten o'clock, took his supper with 
one Felix B. Greer, in the back room of Nurm & Anderson's 
store in Shuqualak. Mr. Greer had some mules in a lot back 
of the store, and hearing a disturbance among them, he went 
out to learn the cause. There he saw a man with a blanket 
over his shoulders, carrying a gun. The stranger remarked to 
Greer, " Your mules are only frightened by me," and at once 
walked down the street, whereupon Greer returned to th« store. 
Greer again that night saw the stranger on the platform of the 
railway passenger station, and also saw him in front of Nurm 
& Anderson's store, where his horse was hitched. Greer 
remarked to him that he had a fine horse, and he replied that 
it was a thoroughbred. Tlie moon was shining very brightly, 
and Greer noticed that the horse was a dark iron-gray with a 
white face, and fifteen or sixteen hands high. Greer further said 



,376 HOMICIDE. 

in evidence, that in conversation with Mr. Brantley that evening, 
December 3d, Brantley said he was expecting his wife by the 
early morning train, and in order that he might not fail to be 
present on arrival of the train, he was to sleep at the passenger 
station-house, with Mr. Irwin, the station agent. 

Eskridge, it would seem, was prowling about the vicinity of 
the railway depot several hours that night, watching for his 
victim. During all this time he had his blanket wrapped about 
his shoulders, and had his gun, which was then properly ad- 
justed, with the lock under his arm, carrying it in the usual 
manner, muzzle down. Some time during the early morning 
hours, and probably somewhat under the influence of liquor, 
Brantley went into the depot unobserved by Eskridge, and 
there fell asleep in a chair before the stove, in which a fire was 
burning. While Brantley was thus sleeping and awaiting the 
arrival of the train on which his wife was expected, Eskridge 
took deliberate aim, and shooting from where he stood on the 
platform outside, sent the charge through the closed window 
into Brantley's head, causing his instant death. 

The only other person in the room when Brantley was shot 
was the mail-carrier. He was lying upon a bench under the 
window through which Eskridge fired, and was asleep at the 
time. This carrier had seen Eskridge that night on arriving 
with the mail at the depot, and had observed his iron-gray 
horse particularly. Eskridge was dismounted at the time and 
standing with the bridle in his hand. He was wrapped in a 
blanket and had a gun under his arm. When the shot was 
fired, the frightened carrier jumped up, ran out and hid under 
a car, where he remained until daylight. Immediately after 
the shooting of Brantley, Eskridge sprang into the saddle and 
rode rapidly away. 

To return to Mrs. Brantley, whom we left at Parks's Hotel, 
Gainesville Junction. She remained there that night, gave her 
name to the landlord as Mrs. Brantley, and left on the early 
train going north. On the same train was a passenger who, 
on the part of the defendant in the suit, testified as follows: 

The train left Gainesville Junction about three or four o'clock on 
the morning of the 4th day of December. It arrived at Shuqualak, 
twenty-five miles above, on schedule time. When we reached Shu- 



HOMICIDE. 377 

qualak, a lady got up from the seat immediately behind me, in the 
ladies' car, and rushed to the door exclaiming in an excited tone, 
"Where is my husband?" "Is my husband here?" She received 
no reply, and returning to her seat, appeared satisfied. The cars 
then proceeded to Macon, the next station, which is about ten miles 
above. There was a freight train on the main track at Macon when 
we arrived, and the passenger train was obliged to halt until the 
freight train could back out. After our train stopped, the same lady 
took her satchel and was in the act of getting ofif the train when I 
informed her that the train had not reached the depot. It was a cold 
morning, and I then occupied the seat directly in front of the stove. 
After I spoke to her, the lady came in and stood by the stove, when 
I observed that her dress was wet and I asked her to take my seat. 
She seemed cold and her shoes were muddy. She sat down and 
asked me to share the seat with her: I did so. As soon as I took 
mv seat she commenced talking of what caused her feet to be wet. 
She said that that morning her husband put her on the train at 
Gainesville junction, and as she was getting to the train she stepped 
into the mud. She then said that her husband from Selma had tele- 
graphed her to meet him at Shuqualak, and if he was not at Shu- 
qualak, for her to go on to Macon. After telling me this, she said 
that her husband would have come up with her on the train that 
morning, but that he had a very fine race-horse which was afraid of 
the cars, and so he had ridden his horse through the country to meet 
her at Shuqualak. She requested me to attend to her baggage in 
going from the depot to the town of Macon. We stepped into the 
omnibus, and I then discovered that the woman was apparently drunk. 
When we reached the hotel she was in such a condition that she 
could scarcely alight from the omnibus. When the driver opened 
the door I took her satchel and mine. She caught hold of my arm 
and walked with me into the hotel. I remarked to the clerk that 
here was a lady who wanted a room. She paid her omnibus fare, 
and while she was doing so I left the hotel office. When I returned, 
about twenty minutes later, the clerk assigned me a room. While I 
was in my room my attention was attracted by the sound of some one 
pounding on the wall in the adjoining room, and calling " Come in." 
I went to the door of that room, opened it, and discovered the same 
woman who had come to the hotel with me from the cars. I asked 
her what she wanted. She answered, " Come in." I walked to the 
foot of the bed upon which she was lying with all her clothes and 
bonnet on. I supposed that she was still intoxicated, and I left her 
room and at once informed the clerk that she needed assistance. 

It is probable that the intoxication was due to morphine and 
chloral, which Mrs. Brantley took occasionally, and which is 
known to have produced similar effects upon her previously. 



378 HOMICIDE. 

In continuation of the tragic story we quote from the testimony 
of the Marshal of Macon, who was also a deputy sheriff. He 
said: 

I was acquainted with John Harris Brantley, and have known his 
wife Minerva since i860. I have known Joseph N. Eskridge about 
twelve years. On the morning of the 4th day of December, 1870, I 
was ordered by the Sheriff to go to Shuqualak and summon a jury 
for the purpose of holding an inquest upon the body of Brantley. 
I was also informed by the Sherifif that Mrs. Brantley was in town at 
the hotel. I called upon her and told her that her husband was at 
Shuqualak, and that she must go with me to that place. She asked 
me if her husband had been arrested. I told her it made no differ- 
ence; she would find out when she arrived there. Mrs. Brantley, at 
the time, was under the influence of morphine. She said she was 
suffering from neuralgia and could not go with me. I insisted that 
she should get up and go at once. She then asked me why I wished 
her to go with me, and inquired again if Mr. Brantley had been 
arrested. I told her it made no difference; that she would learn 
about that after we started; that she must get up and go with me, 
which she did. On the road to Shuqualak we came up with the 
Sherifif, who informed Mrs. Brantley that her husband had been killed 
at Shuqualak that morning. She made an efifort to cry, but did not 
shed many tears. We then went on to Shuqualak. While we were 
on the road I handed her a letter. She then spoke of Mr. Brantley 
and said she had always told him that if he was ever killed or cap- 
tured it would be at a time when she was going to him. On the 
way she talked of her affairs at home, saying that she was left in a 
bad condition; that Mr. Brantley was always writing to her for 
money, and she did not have any to send him; that he had written 
her to come on and see him, and she was afraid to stay away. Appar- 
ently, her husband's death was the least of her troubles. I asked her 
if she had any idea who did the deed. She answered that she had 
not; that she could not think of any one who had animosity against 
him sufficient to do such a deed. When we arrived at Shuqualak we 
passed within thirty or forty steps of the place where Brantley was 
killed. I asked her if she wanted to see her husband's body, and she 
said she did not. I inquired if she wished to go to the hotel, and 
she asked me if I did not have a friend at whose house I could take 
her, so that she would be secluded. I told her that I did have, and 
I carried her to Capt. Roll's house. During the drive from Macon 
she seemed quite indififerent about her husband and the manner of 
his death, and much of the time she talked and acted in an ordinary 
and unconcerned manner. She did not go to see her husband's body 
at any time. I remained at Shuqualak from about ten o'clock in the 
morning until about an hour by the sun in the evening, I visited 
Mrs. Brantley several times during the day. She made no allusion 



HOMICIDE. 379 

to her husband, except to ask me what the notions of the people 
were about his death. I told her that they were saying that she was 
as deep in the crime as the man who committed the murder. She 
replied to this that she could not see what grounds they could have 
for such a feeling against her. I told her it was because of a letter 
written by her which was found on Mr. Brantley's person after he 
was murdered, stating that she would be at Shuqualak on the morning 
train of December 4th. I then asked her why she did not get off 
the train at Shuqualak instead of going up to Macon. She replied 
that she sent a gentleman, who was sitting on the seat next to her, 
to inquire if Mr. Brantley was there, and he told her Mr. Brantley 
was not there; and so she then went on to Macon because Macon 
was the next station. I asked her why she did not get off at Shu- 
qualak, even though Mr. Brantley was not there. She did not reply 
to this question. She made no inquiry concerning the dead body of 
her husband, as to what attention was being paid to it, or whether it 
was receiving any attention at all. I told her I was going away, when 
she eagerly asked me where I was going. I answered her by saying 
that the Sheriff had ordered me to capture the man who had done 
this deed. When I said that she looked frightened, and pleadingly 
implored me not to go and leave her all alone, in such a condition; 
but to let some one else go, as I was all the friend she had. I told 
her I would have to go, or I would lose my office. She asked if I 
had any idea who the person was. I answered I had not. I further 
said to her that if she had, and if it was a friend of hers, she must 
tell me, confidentially, as her friend, and I then would know how to 
proceed. She replied, " Mr. Simmons, I cannot say." I then left her. 
During the day I had made inquiries in Shuqualak about what had 
occurred there at the time of and immediately preceding the killing 
of Brantley, for the purpose of getting a clue to the murderer. I 
learned that a stranger came there the night before on a gray horse, 
and was first observed at about nine or ten o'clock when he hitched 
his horse in a back yard behind a store, and at about eleven o'clock 
he brought the horse in front of the store and tied it to a wagon. 
I was shown both places where the horse had been tied. I also 
learned that this strange man had been prowling about the place dur- 
ing the night until Brantley was killed, and then he left on his gray 
horse. While lurking about the depot, the stranger had a blanket 
thrown over his shoulders, and a double-barrelled shot-gun partially 
concealed under it. I got a minute description of this gray horse 
and made a careful examination of his tracks where he had been 
hitched, and noticed that the horse was barefoot except the left fore- 
foot, which had a worn shoe upon it. After obtaining all the informa- 
tion I could, I followed the track of the horse from the corner of 
the depot where it had been hitched last. From the tracks the horse 
appeared to have taken an easterly course^ towards Wahalak, going 
in a lope. As long as daylight lasted, we were enabled to follow the 



380 HOMICIDE. 

horse by its tracks. At the forks of the road the tracks indicated 
which road he took, and also showed that he went in a lope for seven 
miles until he arrived at the house of Mr.^ Etheridge. At the house 
I learned that the horse and the rider had stopped there, and from a 
description of them I knew I was on the right course. I pursued an 
easterly direction, through Wahalak in Mississippi, to Gainesville in 
Alabama. We made inquiries along the road for the horse and 
rider, and thus were enabled to follow them. We also could see 
the tracks of the horse in the soft places in the road, as the m.oon 
was shining brightly. When we arrived at Gainesville, we learned 
upon inquiry at the ferry, that the man and horse had crossed the 
ferry in the direction of Eutaw, Alabama. After having our horses 
fed we continued our pursuit, crossing the Bigbee River at Gaines- 
ville, and rode eastwardly until we came to the house of Doctor Jolly, 
which is about six miles from Gainesville near Mount Hebron. All 
the way on the road from Shuqualak to the house of Dr. Jolly, wher- 
ever we could see the track, it showed that the horse was barefoot 
except the left forefoot. I became familiar with the appearance of 
the track so that I could recognize it at a glance. On the road we 
obtained frequent descriptions of the horse and rider; of the dress of 
the rider and the outfit of the horse. After crossing the ferry we 
met a negro, and from information received from him, and by taking 
him along with us, we went to the house of Dr. Jolly, which is about 
three hundred yards from the public road. This house is not the 
residence of Dr. Jolly, but that of his plantation overseer. Two gen- 
tlemen went with us from Gainesville. Arriving at the place, we went 
first to the overseer's barn, and there found, in a stable, a deep iron- 
gray horse, with head and neck whiter than any other part of him. 
He was a remarkably fine, stylish-looking animal. I found three of 
his feet bare, but the left forefoot had a shoe on it which was badly 
worn, particularly in front. After examining the horse and posting 
guards at the two doors of the house, the deputy who accompanied 
me sent the negro to wake up the overseer. The latter came out to 
the fence. We gave him a description of the man we were in search 
of, told him our business, and inquired if the man was in his house. 
We were informed that he was. By arrangement, we all went to the 
door of the room where the man was, when the overseer called to 
the man and said that he wanted some medicine which was in the 
room, and asked him to get up and light a candle. The man got up, 
lighted a candle, unfastened and opened his door, and we then seized 
him. When we arrested the man he asked, " What right have you 
to come here and arrest me?" I replied, "You are the man who 
killed Brantley at Shuqualak yesterday morning, and we are going 
to take you back there." The man then asked me what authority I 
had to take him from one State to another. I answered that my 
authority was " main strength," and that the Sheriflf of Noxubee 
County had sent me after him, and I was going to take him back, 
dead or alive. 



HOMICIDE. 381 

When we arrested the man I recognized his features, but could not 
recollect his name, as I had not seen him since the war. I said to 
him, " You know me, what is your name? " He replied, " I will not 
tell you till I see counsel in Gainesville." I told him that he would 
never see counsel in Gainesville; that the only counsel he could see 
would be in Shuqualak. In the room where we discovered him, we 
found his saddle and saddle-bags, his double-barrelled shot-gun, and 
two pistols, six-shooters. His gun was unbreeched and wrapped in 
a piece of blanket, and tied behind his saddle. I took the gun and 
examined it minutely. One barrel was loaded with eighteen buck- 
shot, such as are commonly called blue whistlers. The right-hand 
barrel was empty, and appeared to have been shot off. The gun was 
a new one, and the left-hand barrel appeared never to have been used. 
We took the man and put him on a horse, and took him back to 
Gainesville. On the ferry flat at Gainesville he called me aside and 
said to me, " Simmons, I know you; I knew you at first, but I did 
not want to let you know my name until we got here to Gainesville, 
where I can have counsel." I told him he might just as well tell me 
his name at once, as he could have no counsel in that place. He 
then told me his name, and I recognized him as Joseph N. Eskridge, 
a man whom I had known before. He again asked me to let him see 
counsel in Gainesville. I refused to do this, but I untied him, and 
advised him to go back with us voluntarily, as it would be better for 
him to do so. 

The place where we arrested Eskridge is in Green County, Ala- 
bama, thirty-four miles east from Shuqualak. It was about daylight, 
on the morning of the 5th of December, when we reached Gaines- 
ville. There we purchased a bottle of whiskey, and at Eskridge's 
request, we bought a small vial of morphine for him. We remained 
only long enough to effect these purchases, and then rode on towards 
Shuqualak. When about a mile from Gainesville we stopped, and 
Eskridge took some morphine, while we took a drink of whiskey, 
and I invited Eskridge to take some with us. He did so, and then 
commenced crying. He said he would not mind being taken back, if it 
were not for his wife and two little children; that he had as good a 
wife and two as lovely children as were in the State of Alabama. I 
said to him, "Joe, what did you kill Brantley for?" He replied, "If 
I killed him, I had a cause; but I did not do it." He spoke the 
latter part of the sentence ,in a low tone of voice. He then said, 
" Woman, woman, woman, this kind heart of mine has brought me 
to where I am." I then stopped him and told him not to talk any 
more on that subject. We proceeded on our way, and when we 
came near to the church in Shuqualak, where the graveyard is, we 
saw a burial procession at the graveyard; and the deputy accom- 
panying us said they were burying Brantley there. Eskridge then 
said to me, "Simmons, for God's sake, don't carry me past there; I 
do not want to be disgraced that far." As he spoke he became very 



382 HOMICIDE. 

pale. We then turned around, to avoid going past the burying- 
ground, and Eskridge asked us to stop a moment until he could take 
another dose of morphine. While taking the drug, he remarked that 
it was the only thing which would ease his troubles. He then re- 
quested me not to take him through the town where the people 
could see him; that he did not want to be seen going to prison. I 
complied with his request, and conducted him by a back way to 
Esquire Hayne's house, and placed him under guard in a private room 
upstairs. I there left him. As I was about leaving him, he asked 
me if Mrs. Brantley was in town. I answered that I did not know. 
He desired me to ascertain and let him know, as he wished to see 
her. I told him if she was there I would return and inform him; 
but if she was not there I would not come back. He requested me 
to get him another vial of morphine and send it to him, as he had 
taken all that I obtained for him in Gainesville. After leaving Esk- 
ridge I went to the house where I had left Mrs. Brantley the evening 
before, and upon inquiry was told she had gone from there to Kemper 
County, about eighteen or twenty miles distant. 

On the morning of the 6th of December, Eskridge was taken 
before a court composed of three magistrates of Noxubee 
County, for preliminary examination. He was fully identified 
by three or four persons as the man who rode up to the railway 
station, on the night of the 3d of December, on a gray horse, 
and who had been observed prowling about the station, as 
already described. He was promptly committed, without bail, 
to answer the charge of murder of John H.. Brantley. He was 
first taken by cars to Macon, and kept there, under guard, over 
night. The next morning, which was the 7th of December, he 
was lodged in jail. 

On the morning of the 8th of December a warrant was 
issued for the arrest of Mrs. Minerva S. Brantley, on the 
charge of being accessory to the murder of her husband. A 
deputy sherifif made the arrest at the residence of Mr. Maury, 
in Kemper County, whither Mrs. Brantley had gone from Shu- 
qualak. The officer who made the arrest testifies as follows: 

I told her I had a very unpleasant duty to perform, as an officer; 
that she was my prisoner. She was sick in bed and unable to be 
removed. I summoned her attending physician, and he decided she 
was not able to be moved. When I first went into her room she was 
in bed, lying with her face from me, with her head on the far end of 
the pillow. The end of the pillow towards me was tilted up, and I 
noticed the handle of a small Wesson pistol, which I took and 
removed from under the pillow. When I told her she was my pris- 



HOMICIDE. 383 

oner, she turned in bed and put her right hand under the pillow 
from which I had just taken the pistol. I said to her, " // is not 
there." She then laid down in the bed and had a sort of a fainting 
spell. I examined the pistol soon afterwards, and found three car- 
tridges in it. I remained at the house, in charge of Mrs. Brantley, 
three or four days, at the expiration of which time the Sheriff and 
Deputy Sheriff Simmons came and took her to my own house, in 
Macon, where I guarded her until between the loth and 20th of 
December. 

Deputy Sheriff Simmons testifies relative to his official visit 
to Mrs. Brantley, during this period of her arrest, as follows: 

When we arrived where she was, Mrs. Brantley drew me aside and 
said: " Mr. Simmons, I will never forgive you for this." " For 
what? For bringing Joe Eskridge back? " She answered, " Yes." 
I told her she need not blame me for that; that, in my opinion, she 
knew as much about who had committed this* crime before he was 
captured, as she did now. When we left the house, Mrs. Brantley 
rode in a buggy with me, and continued to ride with me for three 
miles or more of the way. She talked about Eskridge, and asked 
me if he had said she had anything to do with the murder. . I told 
her he had not. When we reached Noxubee County, the sheriff drove 
up and stepped into the buggy with Mrs. Brantley, and I got into his 
buggy. 

Mrs. Brantley soon afterwards was brought before a magis- 
trate's court on preliminary trial. She waived examination, 
and consented to give bail for her appearance at the next term 
of the Circuit Court of Noxubee County, in the sum of $7,500. 
The court, without solicitation from the defendant, fixed her 
bail at $1,000. After furnishing the required bail, Mrs, Brant- 
ley went to Chattanooga, and visited other places, returning to 
Macon, and to the house of Deputy Sheriff Reid, during sitting 
of the Circuit Court at the Spring Term of 1871. While at the 
house of Mr. Reid, she wrote a very lengthy letter to Eskridge, 
who was then in jail in Macon. Concerning this letter there 
are interesting particulars in the testimony of Mrs. Reid. That 
lady said: 

Mrs. Brantley was brought to our house in the month of December, 
1870. She boarded with us a prisoner until her bond was made. 
I had frequent conversations with her during her stay, which was 
about three or four weeks. She frequently referred to Eskridge. and 
spoke of him as a good and kind man. She expressed great sym- 
pathy and sorrow for him, and said that she could not believe he 



384 HOMICIDE. 

was the man who had killed her husband. She sent a newspaper 
by her brother, whom she called Bud, and told him to take it to 
hwi; she called no name. Her brother refused, and said, "Oh! no, 
sis, I don't want to." She then entreated him and said: " Oh 
take it, do; he is so lonesome, and wants something to read." Bud 
put the paper in his pocket and went away. I saw a lady called Mrs. 
Eskridge, while she was in Macon. She had a child with her named 
Morton. Mrs. Brantley was at my house at that time, and Eskridge 
was then in jail. The day before she left my house she wrote a 
lengthy letter; was writing almost all day and nearly all night, and 
she was crying nearly all the time she was writing. In the afternoon 
of that day she asked me to walk out, with her, and I did so. While 
walking, we passed by the jail, and she asked me to point out the 
room which he occupied in the jail, and which window he could look 
out of. Soon after our return she recommenced her writing, and 
took her writing materials out on the porch. She continued crying, 
and told me she was writing to a cousin of hers who had not heard 
of her trouble. She wrote until dark. After supper a neighbor came 
in, and in the course of conversation he spoke of a man by the name 
of Moore who had been arrested and put in jail here. Mrs. Brantley 
joined in the conversation and seemed to be much interested. She 
inquired how it happened that Moore was so easily caught, and was 
told that he was detected by a peculiar watch-key and chain that he 
wore. She continued her writing in my room until after midnight, 
having inquired first if it would disturb us, stating that she had a 
great deal of writing to do. She left my house the next morning, 
saying she was going to Chattanooga. Before leaving she came into 
my room and laid the letter which she had written on the mantel, 
and asked me to deliver it to Mr. Reid, my husband, with a 
request that he would hand it to Col. Dismukes, her attorney. I 
took the letter from the mantel; it was unsealed, and addressed upon 
the outside to Col. E. Dismukes. I opened and read it all. I am 
acquainted with the handwriting of Mrs. Brantley. It was her hand- 
writing. I copied the letter, and copied it carefully, word for word 
and letter for letter. Where a word was erased in the letter I erased 
it in the copy I made, and it was in all respects a perfect copy. 
When I had copied it, I gave the letter to Mr. Reid. The copy which 
I made is now on file in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court 
of Noxubee County. 

The letter to which the foregoing testimony alludes was 
enclosed in a sheet of paper upon which were written the fol- 
lowing words: 

Colonel Dismukes— Will you be so kind as to hand this letter to 

, and oblige Yours truly, 

M. S. 



HOMICIDE. 385 

The whole manuscript was placed in a large envelope ad- 
dressed to Colonel E. Dismukes, and was delivered to him 
upon his calling and inquiring of Mr. Reid for it, saying that 
he had received a telegram from Mrs. Brantley requesting him 
to call for it. The full text of the letter is as follows: 

My Own Precious One — We did not come this morning as we 
expected; we were left. Oh, my darling! oh, how painful, how cruel 
and agonizing it is to my poor, sad heart, to be so I can almost hear 
you speak, but dare not go to you. Bud* wants to see you, but I 
think it best he should not. He is perfectly willing for me to do 
everything in the world for you, and will assist in getting money 
for you. I am going to raise money for you, my own darling one, 
if I have to sell my land. You shall be released, cost what it may. 
I cannot live, my sweet one, if you have to sufifer in this way, for 
you are suffering, surely. Bud is willing for us, just as soon as we 
can raise the money, to go far away to some new state; and now, 
my precious one, promise me that when you are free you will not 
stop until you are far, /«r away from this country. Do not, for God's 
sake and your own loving " D.'s "f sake, try to see me. It will not 
do for us to see each other in this country, for you will be hunted 
down, and of course I will be wretched, for they will think that you 
will be somewhere near me. Oh, my heart's idol! is it not better for 
you not to see me for years? — but it will not be that long. Oh! sweet 
one, I know you are crazy to see me, and it will almost kill you to 
have to live without seeing me; but it must not be. Promise, swear 
to me that you will not; that you will go far, far away from me. You 
know, my own darling, that I will join you as soon as it is prudent 
and safe for me to do so. I swear, so help me God, I will not rest 
one moment until I get my business in a condition so that I can meet 
you. You are my life, my all on earth. I love you, my own sweet 
one, more than life. I live for you, and I would die for you, bless 
your precious soul. My darling, it would be a pleasure to die, if nec- 
essary, for one so sweet, so noble, so faithful and good as your own 
precious, loved self is. Oh! my darling, what is life to me without 
you? Nothing but a lonely, wretched, and miserable existence. You 
almost fill my every thought, every desire; and there will not, cannot 
be any peace for my weary, anxious soul until you are free and I am 
with you. 

My dearest one, you must go far away into some new State, and 
firmly bear our separation like a true man, with patience and cheer- 
fulness, until I can join you; for I swear to you, my own loved one, 
that my soul, heart, and mind shall know no fear nor rest until I join 
you; and that I am coming to my own darling the moment I get the 

* " Bud " is the pet name of Mrs. Brantley's brother. 

t D." is Mrs. Brantley's signature, as used in her secret correspondence with Eskridge. 



386 HOMICIDE. 

money — for we must have money, we cannot live without it, and I am 
going to have it at any sacrifice. I will sell the last thing I have on 
earth to raise it. I am fearful I will have to sue for my insurance poli- 
cies before I can get that money. Bud is willing for us to leave this 
country; indeed, he is very anxious to have us do so. He expresses 
a great deal of sympathy for you, my own sweet boy. We can find 
places where we can live unknown and in safety. The only trouble 
will be in your getting away. When you first leave here, my darling, 
you must be so cautious and prudent in travelling. I would not go 
where there are telegraphs. You will have to disguise yourself com- 
pletely. Have nothing about you that could be recognized, not even 
your name. Oh! my precious one, I am so fearful that if you do 
get out you will not be prudent or cautious enough. If you stay 
here and stand a trial, I am so fearful they will do the worst they 
can against you. Oh, my precious one, will you promise your de- 
voted " D." that you will trust to her undying love, her true sin- 
cerity, and everlasting faithfulness and devotedness to you? that you 
will not give yourself any uneasiness about her, but rest assured that 
she loves you with a deathless love which the whole world cannot 
change? and that your " D.'s " every thought and hope is of you, 
and that she will employ every moment, and bend every energy for 
you! Precious, darling one, believe me, so help me God! your " D." 
will join you even though you are in Europe or any other part of 
the world. Yes, my sweet, worshipped boy, I am coming to you or 
will die in the attempt. Oh! sweet one, will you take the advice of 
her whose very being and existence is centered in you? Sweetest, 
dearest, best of God's creation: yes, darling, I am proud of your love, 
and thank God in the fulness of my heart for blessing me with such 
pure and faithful love as yours. You alone, darling one, can make me 
happy, and I will die a thousand deaths before I will give you up; 
yes, I first will sacrifice every earthly joy and pleasure — indeed, all that 
is near and dear to me. 

My darling, I will remain in Chattanooga until I hear from you. 
You must destroy every letter I write you, for it would ruin us for- 
ever if they should be found. When you read my letters do not let 
any one see you. Oh! how my heart longs to be pressed to your 
faithful breast once more. It is cruel, oh, most wretchedly painful, 
to have to wait for that sweet, blessed hour when we will meet to 
part no more on earth. My darling, let us pray to God to reunite 
us, and for a Christian resignation to suffer patiently our separation 
until we can join each other in safety. God is merciful and good, 
and He will not deprive us of the greatest consolation we have on 
earth, although the dark clouds of hopeless despair hang threat- 
eningly over our gloomy pathway, and the sunshine of hope seems 
forever fled. In His own good time He will bless us with peace and 
happiness. Many have suflfered the same bitter trials and sorrows, 
such as we now endure, yet in the end have come out triumphant. 



HOMICIDE. 387 

So let us, my own darling, strengthen our hearts with new hopes, 
energies, and fortitude to bear all; and prepare ourselves with renewed 
vigor to conquer or die; to overcome all obstacles which would keep 
our hearts apart. Oh, my own sweet boy! if I could only feel that you 
will cast off all unhappy feelings, and cheer up and endure your 
troubles like a brave and true man, I would be so much happier. 
So do be cheerful, my darling, and determined to be free. I almost 
die with all sorts of fears and misgivings concerning you. Will you 
do as I beg and entreat of you? and, oh, believe and trust in your 
own devoted " D.'s " faithfulness and undying love for her own wor- 
shipped and idolized boy. 

There goes your dinner.* Oh! my darling, it recalls happy scenes 
of days gone, when we used to have bur meals brought to us. It is 
almost more than my sad, aching heart can stand; and to think, 
darling, that the one I so intensely, so fondly, so madly love, should 
be so cruelly and awfully treated! I would to God I had the power, 
then my darling should be free — should not remain one moment more 
in that old, hateful place. Oh, God, have mercy, and deliver my 
precious one from his enemies; and restore him, most gracious God, 
to her who will never, never know peace, nor happiness, nor rest, 
until he is free. Precious, I have wept thousands of bitter tears over 
this letter. I write awhile and cry awhile. 

My darling, I am truly glad and delighted that M.f is to remain 
with you. It is just what she ought to do. It will be so consoling 
and cheering to you in your loneliness to have her who loves you and 
is so near to you, to your heart. Oh! my precious one, I sometimes 
feel that I am doing wrong in loving you, when your sweet and lovely 
wife, who should occupy your whole heart — I am sometimes fearful 
that God will not bless our love. Oh! if you could only forget me, 
and bestow all of your heart's best and warmest affections upon her 
who, before God, is fully entitled to them. I sometimes think that it 
would be better for all if I were to go into a nunnery, and there is 
but one thing that keeps me from it, and that is my promise to you. 
My darling, try and keep M. with you all the time, for it will be a 
great consolation to me to know that you have a loved one with you. 
Oh! would there was more for me! yet all can see you but poor me! 
It is too bad, too cruel! 

Precious, I have heard so many lies since I returned to this place, 
that it makes me hate and despise mankind. How can men tell such 
base, malicious lies? I do believe the old devil has been turned loose 
and has possession of most men. How I long to leave this country 
and go to some far distant one, where I will never hear of any person 
whom I ever knew. My darling, I am heart-sick this evening. Your 
" D." looks ten times older than when you saw her last. Grief and 

♦Eskridge's meals were sent to him from the house wherein Mrs. Brantley was writing. 
t" M.," Eskridge's wife. 



388 HOMICIDE. 

sorrow are leaving deep and lasting traces upon her brow and heart. 
Yes, all within is dark and lonely, desolate and wretched. Oh, what 
is life to me now? I would pray for death, darling, if it were not for 
you. I must live to save you; to help you to be free once more. I 
must live, I must suffer all, bear all, for your sweet sake. I will never 
give up the ship, but will struggle on with undying faith, hope and 
energy, until she is brought safely into port. Oh! my darling, you 
cannot feel more miserable than I, for although my poor, feeble body 
is not imprisoned, yet my heart, soul and thoughts are, for they are 
with you day and night; and your sufferings, griefs and sorrows are 
all, all mine. Believe me, dearest, my spirit watches over you day 
and night. I am with you, always with you. Oh, darling! pray with 
your own " D." to our Almighty Father to sustain you in your under- 
takings, and to restore you soon to the loving arms that are trem- 
blingly awaiting to forever clasp around you. My darling, I could 
never pray with any faith or power before. My every breath is a 
prayer for my absent, darling boy. Just as soon as I return to Chat- 
tanooga, I will send you my picture, which I will have taken; but 
you must be so careful with it. Keep it close to that heart whereon 
I so often have lain my weary head. My darling, it seems impossible 
for me to stop writing to you. I will send you some papers for you 
to read in your lonely hours. Oh! how can I say farewell? how can 
I part with you? how can I leave my sweet one? I have almost 
cried my eyes out; indeed, they are so weak from crying I am uneasy 
about them. Write to your own " D." 

5 o' clock. — My loved one, since I returned this evening from a walk 
in which I had to pass the dark and gloomy walls wherein the idol 
of my heart is confined, I feel that death would be to me a blessing. 
Oh, merciful God! to think the idol of my soul should be cruelly 

and wrongfully shut up m that gloomy . Oh, it will kill me! the 

very thought is maddening. I must leave this place or I certainly 
will go mad, yes, viad, if I remain a week longer. It is more than 
my poor, grief-stricken heart caji bear. I am weeping the most 
painful, the most bitter tears I ever shed in my life, now while I am 
writing. Did you see your " D." as she passed by? Oh! I never can 
tell you the agony I felt. I have had sorrow, but never in all my 
life have I suffered such painful, excruciating grief as I now am suf- 
fering for you. My darling, all say to me that I am free from all my 
troubles; that I should be very happy. Dearest one, they know not 
what they say, they know not the utter desolation, the wretchedness, 
the imperishable grief that fills my soul. They know not that all my 
earthly happiness, nay, my very life and existence, are confined in 
that gloomy prison. I cannot live if you are not released. I shall 
go crazy or will die. I truly believe I have been almost insane all 
day. Oh! my darling, why did you not write your " D." one sweet 
line to-day, to cheer and console her poor heart. I know you have 
with you those who love you fondly, and I will not be selfish. God 



HOMICIDE. 389 

bless dear little Morton;* how truly I love him, for he is my darling's 
child, and his children are dearer to me than all others. How much 
I would love to have him with me! — and, darling, as long as I have 
a cent, I will share it freely with your loved ones, for they are mine 
also. It would kill me to learn that they ever suffered while I have a 
cent left. Precious, I am going to try to sell my land, so that we 
will have money enough to buy us all a home in some distant, new 
State. 

Should you get out, let me beg of you to wear nothing whatever 
that you have worn before; not even your sleeve-buttons. Do not 
have any baggage that you have with you now, for if you do, you 
will be described, and it may be the means of your recapture, as 
were the things of Moore. He was discovered by a key upon his 
watch-chain. See what little things will do. Oh, how can I stop 
writing, for it is my only pleasure and comfort! When you write 
me, direct your letters like the others, except do not put on them 
" strictly private," as it may cause suspicion. Try and disguise the 
backing of your letters, as they may have found out your handwriting 
in the office here. Give all your letters to Dismukes to put in the 
office. My loved one, write to your " D." soon. God bless you and 
our dear loved ones. 

Ever yours until death, 

" D." 

It is now a well known fact that at the date of these occur- 
rences the prison discipline in some of the Southern States was 
of an exceedingly loose and uncertain character. The officers 
of justice were those least competent to serve as such, and in 
some instances even the bench was in the custody of persons 
without honesty or reputation. It is not to be wondered at, 
then, that this beautiful woman, who was so madly in earnest, 
should have found an official ear willing to listen to her entrea- 
ties. Little surprise was manifested when the fact was made 
public that the cell of Eskridge was mysteriously vacant; that 
the prisoner had gone, no one knew whither. 

The extent of Mrs. Brantley's complicity with the murder 
was not then known, nor was it generally credited, and those 
who did suspect such a thing possible were willing to excuse or 
justify it. Not only was Mrs. Brantley the charming woman 
we have described, but her husband was known in the locality 
as a miserable vagabond and a fugitive from justice. It was no 
wonder that she could not mourn a loss which was merely 

* Morton is Eskridge's little son. 



390 HOMICIDE. 

nominal, not real. The criminal proceedings against her were 
quietly abandoned, and she then only needed to return to Selma 
for the furtherance of her plans, and to notify the insurance 
companies of her claims against them. This she did through 
her counsellor, General Morgan. Without delay legal steps 
were taken by her attorney for the recovery of the sum insured, 
which action resulted in the disclosure of the plot culminating 
in the tragic manner we have related. So overwhelming was 
the evidence produced by the Travelers Insurance Company in 
defending the suit, the plaintiff saw that her cause was not 
only hopelessly lost, but that her liberty, and perhaps her life, 
was endangered. A discontinuance of the suit stopped the 
introduction of further evidence, and the plaintiff disappeared 
from public gaze. For a long time her whereabouts was a 
profound mystery, known only to her legal advisers, if at all 
times it was known even to them. 

The developments resulting from the insurance suit occa- 
sioned further steps to be taken for the recapture of Eskridge, 
and finally he was discovered and arrested in Texas, whence he 
was brought back to Mississippi, where he was tried for the 
murder of Brantley, and upon being found guilty was sen- 
tenced to be executed. That the extreme penalty of the law 
would have been carried into effect, there is no reasonable 
doubt; but during the Governor's temporary absence from the 
State, a pardon was obtained from the negro Lieutenant-Gov- 
ernor. It is generally believed that a bribe of $500 was the 
price paid for Eskridge's pardon. We have no positive evi- 
dence that such, or any sum was paid. Our only reason for 
discrediting such a rumor is, that so large a sum as $500 was 
regarded necessary to purchase a pardon from the official who 
granted it. 

THE HUNTER-ARMSTRONG TRAGEDY. 
Benjamin Hunter was a man who stood well in business 
circles in Philadelphia, and who had accumulated money in the 
kitchen range and boiler manufacture. He was respected in 
the church of which he was a member, and was said to be a 
kind and affectionate husband and father. An old personal 
friend, John M. Armstrong, a slender, good-looking man, 



HOMICIDE. 391 

rather deaf, about forty years of age, who was engaged in the 
music-pubHshing business, induced Hunter to invest money in 
his business as a special partner. When this association was 
dissolved by limitation, Armstrong was in Hunter's debt to an 
amount exceeding seven thousand dollars. The undertaking 
turned out unsuccessfully, and Hunter complained bitterly that 
Armstrong had lived in a style beyond his means, that he 
avoided and slighted his creditor, and evinced no disposition to 
meet his indebtedness. Hunter, who was noted for his avari- 
cious spirit, brooded over the loss till he conceived what he 
termed a " deep-laid plot " to insure Armstrong's life in his own 
behalf for a large sum — much larger, as afterward appeared, 
than the amo-unt of the obligation — and eventually compass his 
premature death. 

He proceeded to carry this villainous design into execution 
by taking out the following policies on the life of Armstrong: 
One for $10,000 in the Manhattan Life, one for $10,000 in the 
Mutual Life of New York, and one for $6,000 in the Provident 
Life and Trust of Philadelphia. Armstrong was too deaf to 
catch the mention of these sums at the offices, and Hunter 
told him that the total insurance was only $7,500, just enough 
to cover the amount of his indebtedness, and thus disarmed 
suspicion. Hunter's next step was to procure an assassin for 
his victim, and he found one in Thomas Graham, a dissolute 
fellow, formerly his apprentice, who consented to do the deed 
for $500. Hunter took a journey to Virginia, with the under- 
standing that the murder was to be accomplished while he was 
away; but nothing was effected during his absence, Graham 
becoming chicken-hearted and infirm of purpose, and he found 
that he himself would have to take a direct and active hand in 
the work of assassination. He forged on a postal card a mes- 
sage from Ford W. Davis, of Camden, the New Jersey city on 
the opposite shore of the Delaware River, to Armstrong, invit- 
ing the latter to visit him (Davis) in that town to receive money 
in payment of a debt due to him. Armstrong caught at the 
bait, and Hunter and Graham accompanied him. Before leav- 
ing, Armstrong sent a note to his wife informing her that he 
would not be at home to take tea that evening, as he was 
going to Camden with Hunter and Graham to receive sonic 



392 HOMICIDE. 

money. This was January 23d, 1878, seven weeks after Hunter 
had taken out the poUcies on Armstrong's hfe. Hunter had 
bought a new felt hat and a hatchet, and muffled himself up so 
as to be unrecognizable. Graham was provided with a ham- 
mer, on the handle of which, as well as that of the hatchet, 
were cut the initials F. W. D., implying a design to throw 
suspicion on Ford W. Davis, against whom he owed a grudge, 
and whom he was willing to see convicted and punished for 
his own crime, for which every preparation had now been 
thoughtfully and carefully made. 

When the victim reached the comer of Fifth and Vine 
streets, Camden, near Ford's residence, Hunter gave the signal 
by uttering the word " yes," which the deaf Armstrong did not 
hear, but which brought Graham, who had slunk behind, up to 
the work, and he felled Armstrong to the earth with his ham- 
mer. As he sank beneath the force of the blow, he turned on 
Graham such a look of pitiful appealing and distress that the 
assassin, pierced to the heart with remorse, threw away his 
murderous instrument, turned and fled in horror. But Hunter, 
a bolder and more hardened wretch, completed the butchery 
by smashing the victim's skull with his hatchet. The assassins 
met again at the ferry, where, in answer to Graham's anxious 
inquiry. Hunter replied, " I finished him." Graham received 
$10 on account from Hunter as payment for the part he had 
taken in the murder. 

When Armstrong was found on the sidewalk he was insen- 
sible. He was taken to his home in Philadelphia. The ham- 
mer on which the initials were cut was picked up, and Ford W. 
Davis was arrested. James P. Demaris, another resident of 
Camden, likewise involved in business complications with 
Armstrong, was also imprisoned on the same charge, as an 
express driver testified that he saw two men running away on 
the fatal night from the scene of the murder. The appear- 
ances against them were dark and menacing. At daybreak, 
after the night in which Armstrong was struck down, his 
son Frank, prompted by the note his father had sent the even- 
ing previous, called on Hunter for an explanation; but Hunter 
declared that he had not been at Camden on the night before, 
and that if Armstrong had written that he was going there 



HOMICIDE. 393 

with him he was " covered with Hes from head to foot." 
Hunter went soon after to the shop of one Peter Epp, to re- 
quest him to go with him to repair a boiler; and as they were 
on their way, begged him as a favor, because a man had been 
hurt at Camden where he had been the night previous, to state 
that he, Hunter, had been at his place at that time, lest his wife 
should be angry with him and he should be brought into dis- 
credit in his church. Epp, who is said to have been a decent 
mechanic, was foolish enough to comply with the request. 

Then came a climax which revealed the fiendish and revolt- 
ing cruelty of Hunter. After calling at Armstrong's with Epp 
to force his alibi on the family, he returned later in the day, 
and quietly entered the room in which the dying man lay. The 
wounds had been staunched and carefully bandaged, and the 
sufferer was lying unconscious on the bed. Mrs. Smith, an old 
friend of the family, acting as nurse, was the only other person 
in the room, the doctor having just gone. Hunter, seizing 
the opportunity, said blandly to Mrs. Smith that he would see 
to Armstrong and relieve her for a little while, urging her to 
go down and comfort Mrs. Armstrong. Mrs. Smith left the 
room. In a few minutes she returned. She saw, to her hor- 
ror, that there was a complete and terrible change in the dying 
man. His body was in a violent tremor, he was moaning, and 
his wounds were bleeding afresh. 

In the excitement, Hunter said he would go for a doctor, 
and left the house. It was then discovered that the bandages 
had been torn from the murdered man's head, and that a clean 
napkin, which had just been placed over it, had been taken 
away. Fearful lest Armstrong might be so far restored to 
consciousness as to reveal the name of the murderers, the mis- 
creant had torn open the wounds he had made, and thus 
rendered his victim's death certain and speedy. 

A few days after Armstrong's death Hunter accepted an invi- 
tation to go to New Jersey " to give important testimony in the 
case," but was not permitted to return home, the suspicions 
against him, however, being mainly based on the fact of his 
holding the large insurance on Armstrong's life, and his exces- 
sive eagerness to divert attention from himself. As the chain 
of evidence grew stronger, Davis and Demaris were released, 
and Hunter was bound over on the charge of murder. 



394 HOMICIDE. 

Thomas Graham was next suspected as an accomplice, and 
was " shadowed " by the poHce for many weeks, a detective 
obtaining rooms in the house where Graham boarded. Enough 
was learned to warrant Graham's arrest, and on the 19th of 
March, two months after the murder, he was taken over to 
Camden, where he made a full confession of the deed. He 
recited Hunter's proposition to him to murder Armstrong, for 
which he (Graham) was to receive $500; how the conspiracy 
failed on one occasion; how on the fatal night Hunter, wearing 
a new felt hat and with his face muffled, went in company with 
Armstrong to Camden, Graham following then with the ham- 
mer which Hunter provided him with, and how at the corner 
of Fifth and Vine streets Hunter gave him the signal for the 
attack. Graham then claimed that after he struck the first 
blow his heart failed him on seeing the distressed and reproach- 
ful look of astonishment on the face of their helpless victim, 
and he then threw down the weapon and ran away, leaving 
Hunter and the victim in the darkness. Soon afterward Hunter 
joined him at the ferry and informed him that he (Hunter) had 
" finished him." Both then crossed the river and separated in 
Philadelphia. 

After this confession a true bill was found against Hunter, 
and on the loth of June he was brought to trial. Testimony 
which was clear and conclusive showed that Hunter not only 
murderously assaulted his victim in the streets of Camden, and 
by cutting the initials on the weapon sought to involve an 
innocent man, but that he also went to Armstrong's house in 
the character of a friend on the day after the assault, and tam- 
pered with the wounds on the head of the dying man, who was 
still insensible, causing them to open afresh. His counsel 
made great efforts to prove an alibi, but they broke down, and 
on the 3d of July Hunter was convicted of murder in the first 
degree. Although the jury remained out nearly three hours, 
it was subsequently reported by some of them that they would 
have convicted the accused without leaving the box had they 
not dreaded the ensuing excitement 

The insurance motive, the purpose to profit by insurance 
contingent upon the life of Armstrong, was clearly pointed out 
in the course of the summary of the public prosecutor, Mr. 
Jenkins, who said: 



HOMICIDE. 395 

" Benjamin Hunter, the defendant, had obtained an insurance of 
$26,000 on the Hfe of John M. Armstrong, and this fact we contend 
furnishes the motive which led to the murder. The defendant was 
not a rich man at that time by any means, as it has been shown to 
you in this case. 

" His property was only valued at $32,000, while his income merely 
amounted to about $2,200. His taxes, the interest on his mortgages, 
and his water rents amounted to $750; and the premiums on these 
policies amounted to something like $1,000 or $1,100, which, after 
being deducted from the amount of his income, would only leave 
him about $500 a year upon which to support his family. He had a 
large family, and this sum was apparently insufficient to support 
them in the style in which they had been living. He had his carriage 
and his horse, he had his servants, and he had his house to maintain; 
and $500 was too small with which to meet the expenses of his expen- 
sive household. It would have taken $3,000 a year at least. He had 
retired from business, and had been living in style. It is a hard 
matter for those who have been accustomed to the luxuries of this 
world to retrench those expenses which are necessary for the pur- 
pose of affording them. It is an easy matter for a poor man to 
become still poorer; but it is hard for a rich man to give up his 
accustomed way of living; and this is the experience of all of us m 
this age in which we live. Benjamin Hunter told you that Mr. Arm- 
strong understood thoroughly that the policies of insurance to the 
amount of $26,000 were to be taken out upon his life by him. He 
stated that they had a conversation together about this matter; and 
that Mr. Armstrong understood it thoroughly. But from the testi- 
mony of Mr. Vanuxem, it is apparent to you that Mr. Armstrong 
did not thoroughly understand the negotiation of this insurance. 
John M. Armstrong had no idea that the defendant was intending to 
procure $26,000 insurance, for when he went to the New York Mutual 
Life Insurance Company, in Philadelphia, to be examined, and told 
Mr. Vanuxem that the policy to be tak'en out was only for the sum 
of $2,500, Mr. Vanuxem asked him, ' No more? ' And he replied, 
*No; $2,500.' Armstrong was not so big a fool as this defendant 
would have you believe. He understood his business; and he knew 
that he did not want $26,000 of insurance upon his life when he only 
owed the defendant six or seven thousand dollars. What, then, was 
the object the defendant had in taking out that amount of insurance 
upon his life? If Mr. Armstrong had lived the length of time for 
which those policies were taken out, the aggregate of premiums 
would have amounted to more than the several policies combined. 
These policies of insurance were a heavy load for the defendant to 
carry; but he tells you that his sole object in taking out these poli- 
cies of insurance was for the purpose of benefiting the creditors of 
Mr. Armstrong. Was ever such an idea conceived — that he intended 
to pay $1,000 a year for the space of twenty years in order to satisfy 



396 HOMICIDE. 

the creditors of John M. Armstrong? He was confident, and he 
thought he knew that he could claim every cent of this money at the 
death of Mr. Armstrong. In fact, he even went so far as to ask 
Mr. Ashbrook, the agent of one of these insurance companies, to 
have the policy made out in such a way that he could collect it imme- 
diately after the death of Mr. Armstrong; and then, after his death, 
what do we see the defendant doing? Three days after John M. Arm- 
strong died we find this defendant placing that policy in the hands of 
a lawyer for the purpose of having it collected. 

" I say, therefore, that the State in this case has shown a very 
strong motive to lead the defendant to commit this murder. Remem- 
ber, also, that Mr. Hunter was one of the best friends in the family 
of Mr. Armstrong. He was continually loaning Mr. Armstrong money, 
but he was always well secured." 

After his conviction strenuous efforts were made to save the 
wretch's life. Judge Woodhull overruled a motion for a new 
trial. Hunter was ably pleaded for before the Court of Errors 
and Appeals. The great influence brought to bear on Gov- 
ernor McClellan proved unavailing, and Hunter was doomed 
to pay the penalty of his crime. 

When Hunter found that his sentence would certainly be 
executed, he showed, in an attempt to commit suicide, the same 
resolute cunning and unflinching determination he had dis- 
played in murdering Armstrong. While chatting, joking 
and laughing in his " cage " in Camden jail, with his keeper, 
Nisson, and smoking his cigar with an air of sang froid, he 
managed, under the pretense of rubbing his feet and ankles 
under a piece of carpet to keep them warm, to cut the arteries 
of his instep with a sharp-, ragged piece of tin, filling the spit- 
toon under him with blood, and had he not been handcuffed 
and a doctor called in to stop the hemorrhage, he would have 
bled to death. He became very weak from loss of blood and 
refused to eat, and was kept alive by stimulants. His pulse at 
various times was as high as i8o. As the time approached 
for execution, efforts were made to overcome extreme nervous 
prostration by pouring down copious draughts of brandy. But 
being utterly helpless and unable to walk, he was carried to the 
enclosure oblivious to all surroundings. At 11.25 ^- ^- ^^^ 
sheriff cut the auxiliary rope, and here occurred a sickening 
spectacle. The rope either had too much slack or gave way 
so much that it lifted the culprit barely from the floor, when 



HOMICIDE. 397 

he fell back and was caught by the assistants. Sheriff Calhoun 
seized the rope leading to the basement and hoisted Hunter 
into the air, and he was hung only by a number of persons 
holding to the rope during the whole time of suspension. The 
physicians said that his neck was not broken, and he died 
by strangulation. 

Thus ignominiously perished the victim of his own insatia- 
ble avarice. His greed tempted him to commit murder, and 
his meanness toward his accomplice led to his betrayal. His 
excessive confidence in his own cunning helped to complete 
his ruin. He persisted in trying to deceive his own counsel 
till it was too late for them to save him. Had he confided the 
facts to them at first, they would doubtless have sent Graham 
out of the way of arrest. Hunter's attempt to rectify the 
blunder by bribing Monks with $200 to poison Graham in 
prison, was a piece of folly from which his counsel found it 
hard to dissuade him. Monks would have kept the money 
and betrayed him sooner than Graham did. Hunter, it is said, 
expressed no contrition for the murder he had committed, but 
quite broke down when its effect on his family, his wife and 
children, was presented to his mind. The love of one's own 
is a feeling cherished even by the most brutal natures, and its 
exhibition on the part of this wretch was the one bright spot 
in the picture on a background of revolting depravity. 

Looking back upon this burlesque on judicial forms of exe- 
cution, and upon the mental anguish and physical suffering 
which attended the last days of Hunter, the majesty of offended 
justice, it would seem, could have demanded nothing more in 
the way of satisfaction. If the vindication of law meant that 
the hangman's rope must be preceded by the helpless torture 
of suspense, the hopeless agony of disappointment, the desire 
without the capacity of self-destruction, the inexpressible woe 
of a wrecked and crushed spirit, and the maddening remorse 
and horror of the closing hours, violated law had nothing more 
to ask. 

In the course ol his fragmentary confessions Hunter said: 
" Armstrong thought I had but $2,500 in each of the three 
insurance companies, and this would have covered his indebt- 
edness to me. I had him insured for $26,000 without his 



398 HOMICIDE. 

knowing it. I had queer thoughts concerning him then, but 
I had no idea of kilHng him. It was that cursed insurance 
did it all. That put the thought in my head and kept it there, 
and that impelled me, I know not how, to do what I did." It 
was not that insurance is a curse, except in its falsification or 
illegitimate misuse; the bread which sustains the body, and the 
bread of eternal life which sustains the soul, may be perverted 
to base uses. The curse was in a nature which, when un- 
masked, exhibits a degree of inherent debasement that seems 
to have been unsuspected by his neighbors. To outward 
appearance he was a respectable, well-behaved, law-abiding, 
church-going citizen; he was revealed as a demon of avarice, 
a monster of iniquity, a felon at heart waiting only for the 
opportunity to strike his victim. One would think that in 
deliberately scheming to kill his friend in order to make money 
by his death he had reached the depths of fiendishness. But 
he went further. There was a lower deep. He plotted the 
ruin and probably the conviction on circumstantial evidence of 
an innocent man, Ford W. Davis. He forged a chain of evi- 
dence which so seriously implicated Davis as almost to afford 
presumptive proof against him. He employed Graham as a 
bribed assassin, and had it not been for the hireling's confes- 
sion. Hunter could have seen either of them hung without 
wincing, and without remorse. Society could not at first com- 
prehend how a man with so fair an exterior could reveal such 
immeasurable outlawr}- and ruffianism, but society now knows 
that the most abandoned criminal could not have shown more 
coolness and cunning in the execution of his plans. 

As to the accomplice, Thomas Graham, public sentiment 
was against conviction of murder in the first degree, because 
as Hunter was convicted mainly on Graham's testimony, it was 
felt that no one would be likely thereafter to turn State's evi- 
dence in New Jersey, and thereby fatally incriminate himself. 
The question was not whether Graham deserved hanging, but 
whether in view of the use the State made of him, and of uni- 
versal custom, it would be ^^^se or just to hang him. Under 
advice Graham pleaded guilty of murder in the second degree, 
and was sentenced November 24th, 1879, by the Supreme Court 
at Trenton, to twenty years at hard labor in the State Prison. 



HOMICIDE. 399 

Chief Justice Beasley, in pronouncing sentence, said it was only 
from motives of public policy, in view of the valuable evidence 
furnished by Graham, that the plea was accepted. He served 
his time, which was shortened by good conduct, and was 
released from prison August 15th, 1893. 

In May, 1882, Armstrong's heirs brought suit to recover the 
amount of insurance placed on his life at the instigation of 
Hunter. A test was made in the United States Circuit Court, 
Eastern District of New York, against the Mutual Life Insur- 
ance Company. Before the poHcies were issued, Armstrong 
had executed an assignment to Hunter of all policies that 
might be issued. The former, therefore, according to well- 
settled legal principles, had no interest in an insurance which 
was the sole property of his murderer. When Hunter was 
convicted of his crime and paid the penalty on the gallows, it 
was generally supposed that the anticipated profits of his fraud 
perished with him, and that any attempt to collect the money 
in behalf of his estate would meet with summary failure. But 
this attempt to recover the money in behalf of the murdered 
man's family raised strange questions in ethics as well as in law. 
Public policy demands that fraud should defeat a contract 
whether it be the destruction of insured property or insured 
life. Is that policy changed in respect to the sufferer from the 
fraud? Public policy is certainly against recognition of a con- 
tract consummated for purposes of fraud. Any other posi- 
tion would allow the heirs to connive with swindlers and 
defeat the whole object of the law. If the insurers are liable, 
it must be on the assumed ground of a criminal negligence 
which furnishes the temptation for the murder. But such an 
action should be of the nature of damages, and not under a 
policy. 

There is a rude sense of justice that would decree to the 
innocent sufferers the proceeds of the policies which tempted 
the crime, but broader principles of law and ethics would seem 
to forbid that money like this should be collected at all in the 
interest of either party. 

The company resisted payment on the ground of attempted 
fraud by Hunter. The counsel for the plaintiff contended that 
the promise of the policy was two-fold ; to pay a sum of money 



400 HOMICIDR 

to Armstrong in twent)^ years, or to his legal representative if 
he should die within that time. The assignment to Hunter 
carried only the right to the money if Armstrong lived twenty 
years; it did not convey the death claim. The counsel also 
claimed that the evil designs of Hunter could not affect the 
validity of the policy. The court adopted this view, and held 
that any evidence of Hunter's fraud must be excluded. There 
was no evidence in the case of an attempt to defraud on the 
part of Armstrong, nor was any offered to be shown by the 
defendant. 

In the opinion given by Judge Wheeler it was held among 
other things that parol evidence was not admissible to vary 
the language of the contract by showing that the real contract 
was with Hunter; that the administrator of Armstrong was his 
legal representative, and was entitled to recover the amount in 
the absence of sufficient ground to defeat a recovery; that the 
right to receive the money in case of previous death (the policy 
was an endowment) did not pass by the assignment, but was 
left in Armstrong, and accrued to his representative who, as 
Armstrong was an innocent party, was entitled to recover, not- 
withstanding the fraud of Hunter. 

This judgment was reversed on appeal to the Supreme Court 
of the United States. [The ^lutual Life Insurance Company 
of New York, Plaintiff in Error, vs. John M. Armstrong, 
deceased, April 5th, 1886.] Justice Field closed a lengthy 
review of the points in the case in the following language : 

" Wherever the intent or guilty knowledge of a party is a material 
ingredient in the issue of a cause, collateral facts, tending to establish 
such intent or knowledge, are proper evidence. In many cases of 
fraud it would be otherwise impossible satisfactorily to establish the 
true nature and character of the act. 

" The evidence offered that Hunter obtained insurances in other com- 
panies on the life of Armstrong at or near the same time, was, under 
these authorities, clearly admissible. It tended to establish the theory 
of the defendant that the insurance in this case was obtained by 
Hunter upon" the premeditated purpose to cheat and defraud the com- 
pany. Especially would it have had that effect if followed by proof 
of the manner of the death of Armstrong. 

" But, independently of any proof of the motives of Hunter in obtain- 
ing the policy, and even assuming that they were just and proper, he 
forfeited all rights under it when, to secure its immediate payment, 



HOMICIDE. 401 

he murdered the assured. It would be a reproach to the jurisprudence 
of the country if one could recover insurance money payable on the 
death of a party whose life he had feloniously taken. As well might 
he recover insurance money upon a building that he had willfully 
fired. 

"This view renders it unnecessary to consider the efifect upon the 
policy of the statements made in the application of the assured as to 
the amount of other insurance on his life." 

In thus determining the invalidity of the claim of the widow, 
Mrs. Julia Armstrong, the highest Court in the land says in 
substance that a life insurance effected at the instance and for 
the benefit of a man with murder in his heart, the premium 
being paid by that man, the policy delivered to that man, and 
the murder a short time afterwards committed by that man, 
shall not be made available for the benefit of a person who was 
a nominal but not an actual party to the transaction — available 
for anybody, in fact. 

MEYER, WITH MANY ALIASES. 

The case of the People of the State of New York against 
Henry C. W. Meyer, with numerous aliases, was tried in the 
Court of Oyer and Terminer, before Judge George C. Bar- 
rett and a jury, in December, 1893. The charge was the 
murder, by poisoning, of Ludwig Brandt, who had been in- 
sured under the name of Gustav Heinrich Maria Joseph Baum 
in the following companies: Washington Life, $3,000; Mutual 
Life of New York, $3,500; New York Life, $1,000; ^tna 
Life, $1,000. The beneficiary was Meyer's wife, who, in pur- 
suance of fraudulent intent, went through the form of a mar- 
riage ceremony with Baum, according to the testimony of 
Rev. F. E. Werner, of Chicago, in February, 1891, passing 
herself off as Emilie Rather, the name of a niece of Meyer in 
Ovenstadt, Germany. Near the close of the trial, while the 
counsel were summing up the testimony, one of the jurors 
became insane. This unfortunate incident abruptly stopped 
the proceedings. 

A second trial took place in April and May, 1894, in the 
Court of General Sessions before Recorder Frederick Smyth, 
and Meyer was convicted of murder in the second degree. 
The jury stood a long time eleven to one, but the one juror 



402 HOMICIDE. 

obstinately held out against conviction in the first degree, and 
the rest finally yielded to his dominating influence. Yet Re- 
corder Smyth's charge to the jury was strongly to the effect 
that it could not bring in any other verdict than murder in the 
first degree. 

The man who was thus placed behind prison bars instead of 
being led to judicial execution, and ignominiously yielding up 
a life which had several times in succession been forfeited, had 
occupied an unusual degree of attention on the part of the sen- 
sational newspaper reporter. Whole columns of leading 
papers had been filled with recitals of Meyer's plots and 
counterplots, his forgeries and marriages, his murderous plans 
and methods, his aliases and disguises and false personations, 
his skill in poisoning with antimony, his cold-blooded and 
brutal disregard of the lives of his victims, his dexterity in the 
management of accomplices, and the ingenious reinforcement 
of the principal confederate, the she-devil who passed as his 
wife. In the extended and comprehensive investigations pa- 
tiently and intelligently conducted on the part of the Mutual 
Life Insurance Company by the former manager of the Depart- 
ment of Medical Revision, Mr. D. G. Gillette, and his associate, 
the present manager, Mr. H. G. Julian, it was learned that 
Meyer, in the course of his criminal career, had killed at least 
seven persons — Mary Kerchafif, Henry Gelderman, Master 
Meyer, Baby Gelderman, G. H. M. J. Baum (the real Baum), 
Indiana Maggie, and Ludwig Brandt, and that at least three 
escaped after he had commenced his poisoning operations — 
Mrs. Gelderman, Glaus Dressen, and Mary Neiss. It was also 
learned that Meyer's schemes included robbery of others, as 
well as of the life companies. He was after a large estate in 
the Rhine region of Germany, of which the real Baum was 
the only heir. This fugitive and shiftless wanderer was the 
sole representative of a very wealthy family in Cologne, and 
Meyer's game was to impose upon the family his own wife, or 
reputed wife, Mary Dressen, and her child, as the widow and 
child of Baum, and thereby entitled to the inheritance. If he 
could prove collection of insurance money on Baum's life, it 
would go far toward establishing the question of identity, and 
supporting the alleged widow's claim to the Cologne estate. 



HOMICIDE. 403 

One of the remarkable features of this case is the ingenuity 
with which for years Meyer eluded and baffled the detectives. 
At times he was audacious enough to return to the scene of 
his criminal operations, and deceive the police who were trying 
to run him down by his very boldness and unconcerned de- 
meanor. His favorite toxic weapons were antimony and croton 
oil, which he gave in small doses, repeated after brief intervals, 
continuously for weeks, so as to simulate natural morbific con- 
ditions, and thereby throw dust into the eyes of physicians who 
were summoned in attendance. 

Meyer's biographers tell us that in 1893 he was thirty-five 
years of age; that he came from Minden, Prussia; that he grad- 
uated from the Homoeopathic Medical College in Chicago, in 
1878; and that he practiced medicine for a period of ten years 
on the north side of that city. His first wife died soon after 
he began the practice of medicine, under circumstances which 
many believe indicate that she was poisoned. Soon after this 
he was tried for the murder by poison of a wealthy north-side 
grocer named Gelderman. He was acquitted, and soon after 
married Gelderman's widow, who was worth $30,000. Shortly 
after the marriage, he was charged with the murder of his wife's 
son. On this trial he was also acquitted. Not long afterward 
his wife was found to be suffering from a wrecked constitution. 
Suspecting mischief, she left Meyer, and procured a divorce, 
and she claims to this day that he attempted her life by poison. 
A little later, about the year 1888, he met and married his 
present wife, whose maiden name was Dressen. She was the 
daughter of a thrifty, elderly German of the north side, Claus 
Dressen, who had accumulated considerable property. One 
day it was discovered that the old gentleman's name had been 
forged to an application for a heavy life insurance in the Ger- 
mania Company. 

It was easy enough to point to the forger. Meyer at once 
disappeared, but was traced to Denver, whence he was brought 
back, committed to jail, in due time tried for forgery, and, 
with the peculiar luck which invariably attended him, was 
acquitted. His brief incarceration in prison and certain par- 
ties he met there largely influenced and governed his subse- 
quent career. From the opening address of Assistant District 



404 HOMICIDE. 

Attorney Mclntyre, when the trial was resumed, April 26, 1894, 
and from the memoranda of Mr. Julian, we obtain the following 
details of his checkered course of life: — 

In March, 1890, a man was confined in the jail of Cook 
County, the county which embraces the city of Chicago, v/ho 
was known as Carl Kirfel, afterwards as Carl MuUer, and at 
another time as August Wimmers. This man Muller, known 
also as Wimmers and Kirfel, was charged by the United 
States authorities with violating the postal laws of the Govern- 
ment. He personated a young woman, representing herself 
as desirous of obtaining a husband; and for that little pleas- 
antry in the way of correspondence, the post-office authorities 
charged him with improperly using the mails. He was appre- 
hended and thrown into the Cook County jail. When the 
time came to hear the indictment, the records show that he 
pleaded guilty. Thereupon the presiding judge of the Federal 
Court imposed upon him a sentence of one year in the Joliet 
prison. While Muller was confined in the Cook County jail 
awaiting sentence, certain other persons were thrown into that 
jail, among them a man known as Gustav Joseph Heinrich 
Marie Baum, to whom reference has already been made; also 
a professional thief known as Jack W. Gardner, or Chicago 
Jack; also a man charged with an attempt to defraud some 
editors of Scandinavian journals, whose name was Ludwig 
Brandt; also Brandt's relentless fate in the shape of Dr. Meyer. 
Here these kindred spirits met, and acquaintance soon ripened 
into intimacy. It is said by the Chicago police that Meyer and 
Gardner concocted a scheme by which they were to have 
Baum's life insured, then take him out in an open boat on 
Lake Michigan, ply him with whiskey doctored with nitro- 
glycerine in quantities sufficient to produce symptoms similar 
to those of sunstroke, and they would then return to shore, 
and get a physician to certify to death by sunstroke. 

One day Meyer asked his newly-found friend Muller, " What 
are you here for?" Muller said In reply that he had violated 
the postal laws of the Federal Government; that he had adver- 
tised in Western newspapers that he was a beautiful young 
woman desirous of meeting a man who wished to engage in 
matrimony, and as a result of the advertisement farmers in the 



HOMICIDE. 405 

far West communicated with him; that on receipt of their com- 
munications he would write that he would go to them, pro- 
vided they would send means by which he could pay his rail- 
road fare; and, for that, the postoffice officials got after him, 
and caused his arrest. He added that when brought to the 
bar to answer the indictment against him, he would plead 
guilty and ask for leniency at the hands of the Court. Meyer 
then retorted, "There is no money in such small business, 
no money in impersonating a young woman and defrauding 
farmers out of paltry sums. But I can give you a scheme out 
of which you will make fabulous sums, and if you will join 
me in a scheme that I can suggest, the day will not be far 
distant when you will become possessed of a large amount of 
worldly goods." 

" What is your scheme? " asked MuUer. " Why," said Meyer, 
" I want you to enter into a plan by which we can swindle the 
life-insurance companies doing business in this city. They can 
easily be swindled if you follow my suggestions and take my 
advice." 

" Well," Muller said, " I can't do that just now. I am about 
to plead guilty, and I will be sentenced." ''Yes," replied 
Meyer, "but your sentence will not be one of long duration, 
because, in consideration of the plea that you are going to 
enter, the Court will be lenient with you. At all events, after 
you serve the sentence which the Court may see fit to impose 
upon you, I will be in the city of Chicago again, practicing my 
profession. Look me up in the directory of that city, come to 
see me, and we will talk the scheme over." MuUer's sentence 
dated from the ist of August, 1890. Simultaneously Gustav 
Baum was sentenced for a period of one year in the Joliet 
prison, while Ludwig Brandt was sentenced to a shorter term 
of imprisonment, and discharged before the expiration of the 
terms which had been imposed upon Muller and Baum. 
Meanwhile, Meyer was released, and left the prison in the 
month of May or June, 1890. He returned to Chicago, and 
there resumed the practice of his profession. But, before 
reaching Chicago, he stopped for a brief period at a place 
called Ravenswood, a suburban annex of Chicago. Then he 
took a residence, and an office at 331 Centre Street, Chicago. 



406 HOMICIDE. 

From the time that he left prison to the 29th of May, 1 891, 
Meyer did not see Carl MuUer. He and his wife frequently 
visited the Joliet prison to see and talk with Gustav Baum, 
but they avoided seeing Muller. On the 29th of May, 1891, 
the latter's term was completed and he immediately returned 
to Chicago, and went to 190 Twelfth Street. On the 5th of 
June Muller looked up Meyer's address in the director}^, found 
that he was living at 331 Centre Street, called upon him there, 
told him that he had just been liberated from Joliet prison and 
that he was in dire distress and needed money, being practically 
penniless. Meyer handed him some money for his immediate 
needs. Afterward, Muller called again at Meyer's office and 
returned the borrowed money. While there Meyer said: 
" Muller, what are you doing now? " " Nothing," said he, 
" I am not doing anything." Meyer asked, " Are you still 
willing to go into a scheme with me to defraud life-insurance 
companies?" Muller replied that he had just got out of a 
difficulty and was not desirous of again putting his neck in the 
halter; that if Meyer had a swindling scheme on hand he would 
rather not take part in it. One day in the following month 
Meyer called on Muller at his room in Twelfth Street, and 
asked him what he was doing to make a living. Muller replied 
"I am working about houses of ill-repute. I am a musician; 
I am playing the piano in houses of that character." " But 
there is no money in that," said Meyer. '' Why don't you 
join me and enter into a scheme by which we can defraud life- 
insurance companies, and I will promise and guarantee that 
you will make money that will take you far from the poverty- 
line." "What is your scheme?" said Muller. "Simple 
enough," was the answer. " As I said to you in the Cook 
County jail, life-insurance companies can easily be deceived 
and easily defrauded. I will get some one to go and have 
his life insured; I will have the policies written on his life; I 
will ultimately get control of these policies; I will make it 
appear that the subject described in the policies has died, and 
then we will go and collect the money due on the policies, 
and you and I will divide it." Muller said " No ; that won't 
do, Dr. ]\Ieyer. The insurance companies will discover that 
scheme. They will want some identification of the person 



HOMICIDE. 407 

who died. They will require the certificate of some physician. 
No, no, that scheme will never go." "Well, I have other 
ways," said Meyer. " I have methods by which I can deceive 
any life-insurance company." And he added that he would 
unravel his plans at some future interview. 

Muller removed to Fourth Avenue, and one night, while 
walking in Lincoln Park, he met a woman named Lena Kaufif- 
man. They walked together to the house of Meyer, and 
Muller introduced Lena Kauffman to Meyer. A conversation 
ensued about conspiracies to defraud life-insurance companies, 
during which Ludwig Brandt appeared.. " Do you remember 
that man? " asked Meyer. " Why, that is Brandt. He was in 
jail with us." Muller looked at him steadily and said, " Yes, 
I remember him." " Well," said Meyer, " that man will do 
anything I tell him to do. Off and on, he resides with me. 
I maintain him, I care for him, I support him. He is devil- 
may-care in his habits; he is no good to me." He did not 
acknowledge then that he was about to insure Ludwig Brandt. 
Brandt, by the way, was a Norwegian of good family who had 
come to this country seven or eight years before. He was a 
man of considerable ability, and had been a reporter on a 
Norwegian paper in the city of New York. He was reck- 
lessly indiscreet, and addicted to faults and follies which event- 
ually cost him his place. He drifted westward, and in the 
course of time took up with Meyer. He was remarkable for 
physical vigor, but his mind was completely under the mag- 
netic or hypnotic control of the master. Dr. and Mrs. Meyer 
knew that Brandt was infatuated with Mrs. Meyer, and that 
he would do anything at her command or to please her. 

After the meeting at which Lena KaufTman was present, 
and Brandt not far away, Meyer and Muller had frequent con- 
sultations at 157 Randolph Street. One day the former in- 
quired whether Muller had seen Baum while in the Cook 
County jail. Muller said " No, he was kept in one part of the 
prison and I was confined in another. We never had an 
opportunity to communicate together; but just before I was 
about to go, I did see Baum for an instant." " How did he 
look to you? How was his apparent health? Did he seem 
physically strong or did he look weak?" " Oh," said IMuller, 



408 HOMICIDE. 

" he looked sickly and weak." " True," said Meyer, " because, 
when I and my wife visited him in Joliet, we noticed that he 
was in a weakly condition. Do you think he is going to live 
long? " '' I can't tell," said Muller, and they parted. 

In the month of August the couple met again, and Meyer 
said, " Muller, Gustav Baum is in trouble again. He went 
to Cincinnati and there committed a forger^-, and he is held 
under that charge." ''Well, what of that?" said Muller. 
" Why, I must go and get him out of the scrape if I can," said 
Meyer. " I will go and see Gustav Baum, in the Cincinnati 
jail, and try to liberate him. I will have Ludwig Brandt in- 
sured in New York companies under the name of Gustav 
Heinrich Joseph Marie Baum. I will go and talk with Baum, 
and find out from him all about his birth and antecedents and 
the genealogy of his family. Having his family record, no 
insurance company can get on to my scheme." 

Meyer, accordingly, in company with his wife, went to Cin- 
cinnati, and had an interview in the jail with Baum. He inter- 
rogated Baum concerning his family history, ascertained when 
and where he was born, where he had lived, etc. 

On his return to Chicago he interviewed Muller and said, 
" Now the time is ripe; I am going to Europe. I am going 
to possess myself of certain evidences, so that when the time 
comes to defraud the insurance companies I will be so forti- 
fied that there will be no room for doubt." 

After serving his term in the jail at Cincinnati, Baum, 
according to one report, went to the city of Mexico, and, as 
a usual outcome of his moral obliquity, was apprehended for 
the commission of some crime. According to another state- 
ment, he was taken by Meyer to Detroit, where he died of 
consumption. Be these statements as they may, it is certain 
that from that time, the latter part of August, 1891, to the 
present, Gustav Heinrich Joseph Marie Baum has never been 
seen or heard from. All trace of his whereabouts was lost, 
and the detectives long ago gave up further search. 

When Meyer announced Baum's arrest in the city of Mexico 
to Muller, he said, " Now that he is out of the way I am going 
to Germany to see his parents, and I am going to tell them 
that he committed murder in one of the Western States. I 



HOMICIDE. 409 

have learned that some day he will be possessed of a million 
marks. His family, I know from what Baum told me, are very 
wealthy, and I am going to work on their feelings and get 
some of their money. I will tell them I have influence to get 
him out of jail if they will pay ten thousand marks." 

On the 5th of the following month, September, Meyer and 
his wife sailed from New York to Rotterdam, and thence took 
train to Cologne. He found the family of Baum, told them 
that the son had been convicted of murder, and attempted by 
various tricks and devices to get money from them. This 
part of the story was told on the witness stand by a man who 
sailed on the same vessel with Meyer, a man with whom he 
became intimate, whom he took into his confidence, and whom 
he asked to aid him in the criminal course that he was about 
to pursue, even to the corroboration of his statement to the 
Baum family that the son was in prison on the charge of mur- 
der. His conduct must have been insufferably offensive, 
according to letters from the agent of the Mutual Life in 
Cologne, and Mr. Gustave Baum, of that city. He was driven 
out of Cologne, and was obliged to leave hastily and by stealth. 
He took the first steamer back to America, and when he 
reached New York he was so impecunious that he pawned 
his watch in order to pay his car fare to Chicago. 

About the end of December, 1,891, or the beginning of 
January, 1892, the restless Meyer sought an interview with 
Muller, and renewed his importunities to become a confederate 
in his scheme. He explained that before he went to Cologne 
he had insured the life of his docile and subservient tool, 
Brandt, under the name of Baum, in four companies, for a total 
of $8,500. He admitted incidentally that in order to complete 
the first payments he was obliged to borrow $70. The lender 
was his friend Gardner, with whom he afterward quarreled. 
He stated that his plan was to obtain a substitute from a hos- 
pital, some one who was nearing his end, palm him ofif as 
Baum, and after his death, Mrs. Meyer, personating the wife 
of Baum, and as such, the beneficiary, would claim the 
insurance. More than that, she would eventually claim a 
share in the Cologne estate. Subsequent inten^icws and dis- 
cussions of the project took place at a beer saloon in Randolph 



410 HOMICIDE. 

Street, as testified by a witness named Egidio. Several strat- 
agems, in turn, were suggested, but Muller was not convinced 
of their feasibility, and declined to join in undertaking them. 
Finally he was persuaded to agree to the plan of substituting 
a moribund hospital patient in another city, and New York 
was suggested as a favorable field of operation. 

During the preparation for the execution of this artifice, the 
conspirators, as the evidence showed, had rehearsals of the 
parts they were to play. Brandt was taught to feign excessive 
nausea, the poor fool being under the impression that that was 
his part of the play, and that when the time came for a corpse 
it would be provided. Mrs. Meyer is said to have exhibited 
considerable ability in her portrayal of typical widow^hood, and 
in exemplifying her acting when, as the widow of Baum, she 
would appear before the insurance companies in the sombre 
habiliments of mourning. 

In concurrence with the general plan, Meyer escorted his 
wife and Ludwig Brandt to the house of a minister in Chicago, 
and they were then and there married, as already noted, Mrs. 
Meyer assuming the name of Emilie Rather. Meyer signed 
the certificate as a witness of the bigamous marriage under a 
fictitious name. Immediately after this comedy, arrangements 
were made to assign the policies on Brandt's life to the pre- 
tended wife. 

Brandt and Muller were to precede Meyer and the woman 
on the way to New York, and to pave the way in that city for 
the denouement. By this time Meyer seems to have felt suffi- 
ciently sure of his control of Muller to unburden his purpose 
plainly. In handing him the railway tickets and money for 
preliminarv^ expenses in New York, and in giving instructions, 
he said, in reference to Brandt, " On the train I want you to 
give him a certain preparation which I will hand you. I be- 
lieve we might just as well do away with Brandt." There 
was no uncertain sound about this. The inveigler had done 
his work so well that IMuller by this time was virtually a par- 
ticeps criminis. IMeyer wrote to a drug store in Chicago and 
bought a package of tartarized antimony (tartar emetic), which 
he handed to IMuller with instructions for its use. The latter 
asked what it was, and Meyer, in reply, gave the German name, 



HOMICIDE. 411 

" brechweinstein," and said that if given in small doses, 
repeated according to his directions, it would produce a con- 
dition so closely resembling that of diarrhoea or dysentery as 
to deceive the physician who would be called in attendance. 
He also gave Muller a bottle containing sulphate of morphia. 

Brandt and Muller left for New York, February 25th. They 
hired unfurnished rooms at 320 East Thirteenth Street, and 
bought some scanty furniture. Brandt, under the name of 
Baum, addressed letters to the insurance companies announcing 
his change of residence, in accordance with instructions before 
leaving Chicago. On the arrival of Meyer and his wife, 
March 4th, the woman saw at a glance that such forlorn lodg- 
ings did not comport with the presumable style of a gentleman 
who was paying for $8,500 of insurance. More furniture was 
therefore purchased, a piano was rented from Gordon Brothers, 
and something in the way of home comfort and ornamenta- 
tion added. 

About the 7th or 8th of March they were ready to begin 
the dosing process. The co-conspirators went to an apothe- 
cary's in the neighborhood of Seventh Avenue and Forty- 
second Street, and on a prescription from Meyer, signed Otto 
C. Stem, M. D., obtained some croton oil. 

Then followed the dismal story of torture, day by day, of 
the poor victim, and his sufferings from chronic antimonial 
poisoning. A young medical practitioner. Dr. Minden, of St. 
Mark's Place, was called in to prescribe for what was alleged 
by the messenger to be dysentery. The symptoms apparently 
corroborated the statement, and Minden prescribed opium and 
bismuth and appropriate diet, regarding it as a case of dys- 
entery, and not suspecting poisoning. The medicine was pro- 
cured, but was not given, while his food was impregnated with 
antimony, the fiend who administered it being undisturbed by 
the terrible distress he was witnessing hour by hour. Brandt 
always believed that he would be brought back to good health 
by Dr. Meyer after the deception of Dr. Minden had been 
carried to sufficient degree. 

Toward the 25th of March Meyer became impatient of 
delay, and concluded to finish his murderous work. On that 
day he went to Jersey City and procured some arsenic, infonn- 



412 HOMICIDE. 

ing Muller, on his return, of what he had done, and his pur- 
pose to substitute the arsenic and " hurry up the job." On 
the night of the 30th, the \\Tetched sufferer died. Dr. Minden 
was called in, and after examining the emaciated body he gave 
the required certificate of death, in which the cause assigned 
was " chronic dysentery." Curiously enough, Dr. Minden 
was somewhat of an expert in antimonial poisoning, as he had 
practiced among the lead workers of Colorado, but Dr. Meyer 
was skilful enough to deceive him. 

Two days after Brandt's death he was buried in Evergreen 
Cemetery. The pretended widow donned the sable garments 
of mourning, and after the funeral, notice was sent to the in- 
surance companies. A j-epresentative of the Washington Life, 
Mr. Tiemey, who was also a notary public, called to take the 
acknowledgments that were necessar}^, and while completing 
the papers his sympathies were so strongly aroused by mani- 
festations of grief, desolation, and despair, on the part of the 
afflicted " widow," that he soothed her with a promise to facil- 
itate the collection of the money that was due to her. On the 
day appointed, the woman, heavily draped in solemn black, 
called at the office of the Washington Life, in company with 
Muller, and after presenting evidence to justify the payment of 
the claim, a check for $3,000 was handed to her. Meyer was 
waiting outside, and in a few minutes the check was in his 
grasp. His wife endorsed it, they wxre identified at the bank 
by the complaisant landlord of 320 East Thirteenth Street, 
and the money was paid. On the next day the same game was 
played at the office of the Ne^v York Life, with the same result, 
a check for $1,000 being paid to the claimant. On the fol- 
lowing day the conspirators called at the agency of the ^Etna 
Life, but there instead of realizing the result of eight or nine 
months' preparation, they " struck a snag." The check had 
not been forwarded by the company from its Hartford office, 
as the company at first suspected all was not regular, owing 
to the occurrence of death so soon after insurance, but the 
check was forwarded soon afterward. They never called for 
that check. 

The next day they presented themselves at the office of 
the Mutual Life Insurance Company, and were introduced to 



HOMICIDE. 413 

the hospitable attentions of Mr. D. G. Gillette, a born detective 
and unsurpassed cross-questioner. What followed is thus told 
in Mr. Mclntyre's address: 

The defendant introduced the co-defendant, Mrs. Meyer, as the 
wife of Gustave Baum. He said he had come there to help her. Mr. 
Gillette looked at him and said, " Who are you ? What relation do 
you bear to this woman?" Defendant said, "I am only a friend." 
" What is your name? " asked Gillette. He replied, " My name is 
William Richter." " Where do you live? " said Gillette. " I live in 
Cincinnati." "What street?" "458 Main Street," in that city. 
" Write it down," said Gillette, " upon a piece of paper." A piece of 
paper was handed to him and he signed the name William Richter 
and the address as that of 458 Main Street, Cincinnati. Mr. Gillette 
then said to the woman, " Sign your name." She signed the name 
of Amelia Baum. " Where did you come from? " said Mr. Gillette, 
in the presence and hearing of this defendant. She said, " I came 
from Denver, Colorado. I only married my husband on the nth 
day of February, and here I am a widow in that short time." " Well, 
tell me something about the people that you know in Denver, Col- 
orado; tell me the name of a single soul that you know there," said 
Gillette. She stammered and hesitated, and said that she couldn't 
remember. Gillette said, " Tell me the name of a single street in the 
city of Denver, Colorado." She couldn't tell the name of a single 
street. Gillette looking at her and the defendant standing in close 
proximity to her said, " Madam, you say you were married on Feb- 
ruary nth, and this is the 6th or 7th of April. Why, madam, you are 
about to become a mother; you are in an advanced state of preg- 
nancy. How do you account for that, married but two or three 
months? " The defendant said something to her in German, and she 
threw her two hands up and said, " My God, I don't want anything 
more here. Take me out of this place." Mr. Gillette stopped her 
and said, "Madam, we suspect that this whole thing is a fraud; we 
know it is a fraud," and turning to this defendant, said to him, " This 
is a fraud and we Jcnow it. There has been a pretended death here, 
or there has been a murder committed. We sent to Chicago and we 
found Brandt's coat. In Brandt's coat were found bills belonging 
to the notorious Dr. Meyer of Chicago." Looking sharply at this 
man he said, " Do you know Dr. Meyer of Chicago, who has been 
engaged in innumerable swindles against insurance companies, who 
has twice been tried for murder in that city? " 

At this the defendant and his wife went out. They promised to 
call the next day. There was a check waiting for them in the agency 
of the ^tna Life Insurance Company. They never went to the 
.^tna Life Insurance Company to get that check for $1,000. Straight- 
way they made a contract with a small furniture dealer up town to 



414 ^ HOMICIDE. 

sell their furniture for $12, of which $4 was paid on that furniture 
and $8 was due on it. They never went to get the $8 that was due. 
There was a piano in that house as I described to you, but they never 
went to Gordon Brothers to tell them to take the piano away; the 
piano was left there. They never went back to 320 East 13th Street 
in the city of New York. Meyer wrote to MuUer that the fraud was 
discovered; that the Mutual Life Insurance Company had got on to 
their scheme, and that he must skip out of the city of New York. 
Just before Muller left the city, or rather just as soon as the policy 
was paid by the Washington Life, the defendant gave to Muller the 
sum of $750 as his part of the bargain and told him to go to Chicago, 
and that he would see him later; that he would communicate with 
him. 

Muller did go to Chicago. He went right out of town as soon as he 
got the $750. Meyer and his wife, instead of going back to the 
Mutual Life Insurance Company to collect the $3,500, or to the 
^tna Life, to collect the $1,000 due, took the first train to Chicago. 
While living in New York it was his habit to wear a beard and to 
wear his hair long. Sometimes he wore a beaver hat, and some- 
times a slouch hat; usually a long-tailed coat. When he reached Chi- 
cago he immediately disguised himself, changing his appearance in 
every way. He altered his manner of dressing and shaved ofT his 
beard. He saw Muller and explained to him once more that the 
insurance people had got wind of his scheme. He kept himself 
secreted; he never went to his home at 331 Centre Street, but in- 
structed Muller to go there and sell his furniture. Muller went 
there under the name of Cline to get the furniture, sold it, and took 
the money thus realized, and gave it to the defendant. Apprehensive 
that if he stayed in Chicago he would be caught, he went to Detroit, 
Michigan. There he remained in concealment for a long period of 
time. Then he went to South Bend, Indiana; from there to Indi- 
anapolis; thence to Cincinnati; and subsequently went to Toledo, 
Ohio. In each of these places he was known by a different name. 
In Toledo he lived at 957 Daw Street, and was known there as Hugo 
Wayler. All these migrations, these flights from one city to another, 
were because he apprehended danger, and felt that the sleuth-hounds 
were after him. 

Seventy or eighty days after the burial of Brandt in Evergreen 
Cemetery, the coroner, at the instance of the Mutual Life Insurance 
Company of New York, directed the disinterment of the body. After 
the exhumation, the people who knew Brandt in life identified his 
remains. The physician who attended him, the undertaker that buried 
him, and others who knew Brandt in his lifetime, stood beside the 
emaciated corpse and recognized the features as those of Brandt. 

The body was taken from the cof^n and laid upon a table. There 
were present the most scientific men that we have, the most thorough 



HOMICIDE. 415 

physiological chemists, the most accomplished physicians and path- 
ologists; they were there on that occasion, and from that body they 
took the viscera, the lungs, the heart, the stomach and the liver. 
They placed them in jars; they were taken to the laboratory and 
there analyzed. The evidence corroborates MuUer when he testified 
that antimony and arsenic were administered. The evidence shows 
conclusively that the body of Ludwig Brandt was saturated and 
impregnated with arsenic and antimony from head to foot. The 
chemical analysis shows that there was antimony and arsenic in the 
muscles, in the brain, in the intestines and in the heart. Arsenic and 
antimony were found in separate, distinct, and weighable quantities. 

Mr. H. G. Julian, special representative of the Mutual Life 
Insurance Company, is the man to whom the credit of finding 
Meyer belongs. He tells the story in the following interesting 
manner: 

After the company discovered that Brandt had been murdered, I 
was ordered to locate Meyer, and was given carte blanche and instruc- 
tions not to return to the Home Office in New York until I could 
bring Meyer back with me. It took a year for the expert chemists to 
determine the poisons that were given, because antimony is so rarely 
used as a poison with murderous intent that all other tests were experi- 
mented with before antimony was finally thought of. It was, therefore, 
one year after his disappearance that I started after Meyer, and found 
him in the unexpectedly short time of six weeks. 

My first move was to go to Chicago to obtain full history of Meyer 
and his fellow-conspirators and their victim, and to watch all the 
relatives of Meyer and Mrs. Meyer and all their former associates and 
haunts to discover some clue to their hiding place. A picture of Meyer 
was found in the Rogue's Gallery of the Pinkerton Detective Agency 
and identified as the man who came into the New York office of the 
Mutual Life. The mails were watched and every dodge known to 
detectives was tried to entrap Meyer, but his long experience in crime 
made him familiar with the ways of detectives, and he did not com- 
municate with any of his old cronies and did not allow his wife to 
communicate with her relatives. I was about to follow false clues to 
Germany when I heard of poisoning operations in Toledo, Ohio, simi- 
lar to those in the New York case, and when I showed Meyer's pho- 
tograph there, it was fully identified. He had insured his wife's nurse- 
girl, Mary Neiss, in the Equitable Life for $5,ooo, representing her as 
his wife, and then commenced to poison her slowly. Carl Kirfel, alias 
Muller, Meyer's accomplice in the New York crime, visited Meyer, 
fell in love with the girl, noticed she was sickly, learned she was 
insured, told her Meyer was probably poisoning her, and eloped with 
her. Meyer got another girl, " Indiana Maggie." from Indianapolis 
in the place of the first and killed her. The Equitable Life discovered 



416 HOMICIDE. 

that the dead woman was not the one insured, and declined to pay, 
whereupon Meyer skipped out again. To the poHce who were hunting 
Meyer for this last crime, it did not occur that the unknown man who 
eloped with Mary Neiss might be an old crony of Meyer. I found that 
his description fitted the Carl Muller of New York, and I then located 
him by tracing Mary Neiss through her relatives. I then had him 
watched and surrounded by Pinkerton detectives, and I set up a law 
office in Chicago and as a lawyer I was introduced to Muller, and he 
finally told me of the Toledo crime, but not a word of the New York 
crime, in which he was particeps criinifiis. Muller undoubtedly did 
not know Meyer's whereabouts at this time, but one day he received a 
letter from him at one of their old resorts, while in the company of 
a disguised Pinkerton detective. The latter reported Muller's agita- 
tion, and the significant word or two that slipped from him. I then 
revealed myself partly and put the screws hard on Muller, and forced 
him to tell me all he knew, and to assist me by keeping up the cor- 
respondence with Meyer under my direction. Muller could not tell 
from Meyer's letters where Meyer was, because the latter was careful 
to have them come indirectly, and through other hands, and not even 
written or signed by him. Muller helped me, under threat of punish- 
ment for other crimes, believing I only wanted Meyer for the Toledo 
crime, and also because Meyer tried to poison his mistress, and did 
not divide the New York spoils fairly. Had Muller suspected that I" 
was from New York he would have told me nothing, being an accom- 
plice of Meyer there, but would have avoided me. After long manoeu- 
vring I finally traced Meyer to Detroit, the last place in the world that 
a man in his situation would think of resorting to, because Mary Neiss, 
in whose stead he killed the Indianapolis girl in Toledo, was insured 
through his instrumentality in the Equitable Life office in Detroit. 

While his house was being watched by my Pinkerton assistants, I 
entered to look at rooms that were to rent, as advertised on a card in 
the window, and as soon as I saw him, I knew he was my man. I 
found there evidence that he and his wife were preparing another 
murder. 

As soon as Muller learned that Meyer was arrested for the New 
York crime, he realized that he had been fooled, and he skipped, but 
I had Pinkerton shadows on him, and when ready, I took him from 
his hiding place to New York, and made him and his wife witnesses 
against Meyer. 

Meyer was arrested July I2th. A requisition upon the Gov- 
ernor of Michigan was promptly honored, and the manifold 
criminal was taken to New York by detective officers. The 
compromise verdict which followed the second trial, as noted 
in this narrative, attracted comment which was anything but 
complimentary to the jur}^ It could only be regarded as one 



HOMICIDE. 417 

degree better than a disagreeraent. Recorder Smyth, before 
whom the case was tried, declared that the crime was one of 
the most atrocious that ever came to his knowledge, and that 
the ve:-dict was clearly illogical, as the evidence warranted a 
verdict of murder in the first degree. 

THE HENDRYX CASE. 

In June, 1877, one Henry C. Hendryx was convicted at 
Angelica, New York, of murder in the second degree, and by 
the Court sentenced to imprisonment for the term of his natural 
life. The prisoner was indicted in the fall of 1876 for the 
murder of his wife, and at a previous trial escaped conviction 
through a disagreement of the jury. Conflicting medical testi- 
mony, aided perhaps by a friendly personal feeling, led to this 
result, and also induced the absurd verdict rendered by the 
jury on the second trial. Hendryx was a young man of fine 
personal presence, about thirty-two years of age, a farmer, and 
was living, at the time of the tragedy, on the farm of Ex-Attor- 
ney General Champlain, in Cuba, N. Y. His family relations, 
so far as known, seem to have been pleasant, and his previous 
character without reproach. He had served in the army dur- 
ing the late civil war, and upon his discharge from service in 
1865 had married, arid engaged in farming, working the estates 
of others upon what is commonly known as the " share plan." 

He claims to have been awakened early in the morning of 
the 7th of July, 1876, by a noise in his sleeping chamber, and 
as he was in the act of springing from the bed across the body 
of his wife, a shot was fired which lodged in her abdomen. 
Going towards the door for the purpose of intercepting a sup- 
posed burglar, a second shot wounded him in the fingers and 
thigh. His wife had been able to rise from the bed and follow 
him without being aware of her own wound until his exclama- 
tion, " I am shot," elicited from her, '' So am I." Assisting 
her into another chamber and laying her upon the bed, he, for 
the first time, inquired where she was wounded, and upon being 
told " In the bowels," examined her person and found such to 
be the fact. It would seem that this discovery should have 
convinced him of the serious character of her injury, and moved 
him to immediate action for medical assistance and relief. But 



418 HOMICIDE. 

no; he claims to have been withheld by her entreaties and fears 
for his own safety, yet states that, in their conversation, she ex- 
pressed doubts of surviving the wound, and talked of plans for 
his future and for their only child, a boy of nine years ; that she 
made some requests as to the disposition of personal remem- 
brancers to members of her own family; and, at the last, that 
she advised him, " after a reasonable length of time, to marry 
his cousin Mattie." Nearly two hours thus passed, and it was 
daybreak before an attempt was made to raise an alarm or pro- 
cure the sorely needed assistance. Then, from the steps of the 
house he fired his revolver in the air, and shouted for " Help " 
in the interv^als of firing. Soon afterwards he sent his little boy, 
not to his nearest neighbor, but to the house where " ]\Iattie " 
was temporarily lodged. She quickly responded to the sum- 
mons, and remained thereafter at Hendryx's house. Mrs. Hen- 
dryx lingered for six days, dying on the 13th of July. The day 
after her death a post-mortem examination developed the course 
of the ball, from its entrance near the umbilicus, passing in- 
ward, upward, and obliquely to the right, and effecting a lodg- 
ment in the right kidney, where it was found. The intestines 
were not injured, but the peritoneum was cut just the size of 
the bullet. The weight of the medical testimony conclusively 
established the fact that the wound must have been received 
while ]\Irs. Hendr}^x lay upon her back, and it does not appear 
in evidence that any of the bed-clothes or night-dress of the 
wife were perforated by the bullet. It will be remembered that 
Hendryx states that in rising he sprang across the body of his 
wife, having during the night changed his position from the 
front to the back side of the bed. An inspection of Hendryx's 
wounds disclosed a slight scratch upon the left thumb near the 
inner corner of the nail, and a corresponding wound upon the 
left index finger. The wound upon his left thigh was upon the~ 
outer side, about twelve inches above the knee, and had the 
appearance of having been made by a small bullet which had 
passed through and just beneath the skin at a point about one 
inch from the place of entry. All bore the appearance of hav- 
ing been made by pointblank shots, the distance of the weapon 
not exceeding, apparently, three inches. It was the theory of 
the prosecution that these wounds were self-inflicted, based 



HOMICIDE. 419 

upon the fact that the wound upon the thigh was in an oblique 
direction, presenting the appearance of having passed from the 
inside outward; that the subsequent discharge of matter there- 
from contained dirty, darkish brown particles, which were with- 
out doubt grains of gunpowder, and that the flesh near the 
wound, upon the inner side of the thigh, also appeared as if 
burned. 

An offer was made to fix the relative position of a hole in his 
shirt (made, as he claimed, by the shot which wounded him) 
with the marks upon the thigh, but in all positions it was ap- 
parent that his claim was untrue. Little doubt existed in the 
minds of the surgeons in attendance of the guilt of Hendryx, or 
that his wounds were inflicted by any other than himself, for the 
purpose of diverting suspicion from himself and avoiding legal 
inquiry. His efforts to this end were for a time successful. 
Three months elapsed before his arrest and subsequent indict- 
ment, and it cannot be questioned that such action was at last 
taken as a result of the inquiry and investigation instituted, and 
in a measure conducted, in the interest of an insurance cor- 
poration. In May preceding the shooting, Hendryx had ob- 
tained from the agent of the Travelers Insurance Company an 
accident policy upon himself. The insurance company was in- 
formed, soon after his arrest, that he proposed, if acquitted, to 
present a claim of indemnity for four weeks' disability. The 
life of his wife was insured by the Mutual Life Insurance Com- 
pany of New York, for the benefit of her legal representatives, 
in the sum of $2,000. Subsequently he endeavored, repeatedly, 
to secure its assignment to himself, but without avail. His 
efforts to this end continued even after the shooting, and may 
have been one of the subjects of conversation during the hours 
of suffering which Mrs. Hendryx endured before he sought 
assistance. Her father testifies: "I had conversation with the 
prisoner about his wife's insurance; I told him the policies 
were not equal; that hers was worth $2,000 to him, while his 
was only worth anything to her in case of contingencies: that 
I did not care for the money, and would speak to one of the 
ladies and have them speak to Cynthia (IMrs. Hendryx) about 
it; I did so; this was in the fore part of the day. In the after- 
noon the matter was again spoken of." Another witness testi- 



420 HOMICIDE. 

fies: " Hendryx talked with me about ii o'clock the morning 
of the shooting about the insurance. Mrs. Hendryx's father 
wanted me to speak to her about it; then he went out and 
Hendryx said, ' We have talked it all over and it is understood,' 
and he wanted me to speak to her. I went to her and said, 
* We would like to know how you want the insurance, whether 
to you or to Henry.' She said, ' To Henry, for his is drawn to 
me and it is no more than right that mine should go to him.' " 
This evident anxiety to realize to himself the pecuniary benefit 
which would result from the death of his wife does not seem to 
have aroused at the time any suspicion in the minds of those 
present, all of whom were relatives or friends of his wife. With- 
out specific designation, her son was the legal representative; 
and the father, in the ordinary course, would have been the 
legal as he was the natural guardian of their child, and as such 
would have controlled the proceeds of the policy. He was not 
content to administer the trust for another, although in the 
situation it would seem that parental affection would dictate 
such course, but he sought to acquire the absolute ownership 
of the benefits to be derived from the policy. 

The realization of the insurance fund was not, however, the 
only apparent motive actuating the commission of the crime. 
Some t\vo years previous, a young lady cousin of Hendrs^x 
had become a frequent visitor. She is described as a person of 
rather more than average height, of a slight, delicate build, with 
brown hair, large and expressive black eyes, a ver}^ intelligent 
look, and an attractive person. Frequent rides in each other's 
company, visits to mutual relatives, with occasional trips to 
neighboring villages, and on one occasion her installation into 
the charge of his house during a short absence of his wife, char- 
acterized their earlier intimacy. It is apparent that such rela- 
tions soon developed into others of a more intimate and ques- 
tionable nature than was warranted by the kinship which existed 
between them. In May preceding she had, at his request, 
taken up her residence with him; but, objection being made by 
his wife, the arrangement was terminated two days previous to 
the shooting. While no act of open, criminal intimacy could 
be directly and positively charged as having been committed, 
yet so strongly did appearances indicate such relations, that 



HOMICIDE. 421 

even before the death of Mrs. Hendryx, her sisters did not 
hesitate in asserting their existence, and the conduct of the two 
during the week Mrs. Hendryx Hngered after being wounded 
was such as to favor such behef. None other dressed his 
wounds, the location of which necessarily involved an exposure 
of his person ; and although " she had a way of making the 
dressings stay on better than he could," yet the operation was 
required to be repeated several times during the day. Little 
attention or service was rendered by either of them to his dying 
w4fe, but, withdrawing from her and the friends surrounding 
her, they passed their time in each other's society, until, upon 
the day of her death, indignant remonstrances by relatives 
forced an outward observance of propriety. " Cousin Mattie " 
continued with Hendryx after the burial of his wife, and their 
relations, according to the testimony at the trial, were even 
more intimate than before. In his desire to possess for him- 
self marital rights over her, the days passed too slowly, for we 
find that in October, but three months after the burial of his 
wife, he sought an interview with his father-in-law and stated 
to him the request of his late wife that he should marry his 
cousin Mattie, and desired advice. No objection was made, 
the reply of the father being, " If that was her request, I have 
nothing to say." Hendryx, evidently, was of the opinion that 
the " reasonable time " had elapsed, or that his wounds still 
required the attention which, it appears, she alone could give. 
His hopes were not, however, to be realized. Arrest, present- 
ment, indictment and trial succeeded, with the final result as 
stated in our opening. 

That the verdict rendered was wholly at variance with the 
testimony and evidence cannot be denied. Tlie array of evi- 
dence, circumstantial as it may have been, fully proved the 
crime intentional and its perpetration premeditated, if it proved 
anything. None other than the prisoner could have any motive 
for its commission, or profit by its perpetration. His circum- 
stances were not such as to expose him to a visitation from 
burglars seeking to obtain either money or valuables, and a 
tenant farmer does not generally possess such property as in- 
vites the attention of those gentry. To us it seems that the 
case, as presented, did not admit of other findings than guilty 



422 HOMICIDE. 

or not guilty, as charged in the indictment. The time and 
manner in which the crime was committed, apart from any- 
other circumstances or consideration, were conclusive as to its 
premeditation. No sudden fit of temper or angry quarrel led 
to its commission. It was deliberately planned and as delib- 
erately executed. His neglect to raise the alarm, or seek 
required assistance, his inattention to his wife and subsequent 
conduct, all serve to stamp his act as intentional, premeditated 
murder. The verdict, as rendered, was a mockery in the ad- 
ministration of justice, and a scandal and reproach upon the 
jury, who, by their solemn oaths, were sworn to well and truly 
try and true deliverance make, without respect of person or 
favor of any man, according to the law and the evidence before 
them. 

THE PROFESSOR WEST INFAMY. 

In Dover, the capital of Delaware, a certain " Professor " 
Isaac C. West, Jr., was pretending to experiment with a mys- 
terious gas, one peculiar property of which was that it would 
cause the removal of the color from the skin. He took care to 
spread abroad a report that the gas was highly inflammable 
and explosive, and that in conducting his experiments he was 
obliged to exercise great care to prevent dangerous results. 

One day in December, 1872, there was a loud explosion in 
the professor's laboratory, followed by an alarm of fire. Suc- 
cessful efiforts were made for extinguishing the fire, after which 
some of the citizens who entered the building encountered a 
ghastly sight. In a charred dry-goods box lay the mutilated 
remains of a man's body without head, hands, or feet. By the 
charitably inclined it was at first supposed that the professor 
had been killed and blown to fragments by an explosion of a 
retort of the destructive gas. Closer examination revealed 
evidences that the missing head, hands, and feet had been cut 
and not blown from the body. Underneath the floor where 
the body lay was discovered a quantity of gunpowder sufficient 
to have blown the body to atoms if the flames had reached it. 
These facts, conjoined with other circumstances, and notice- 
ably the disappearance of a well-known colored man named 
Henry Turner, who had frequently assisted West in his work, 



HOMICIDE. 423 

eventually aroused grave suspicions of foul play. These sus- 
picions were strengthened when it was discovered that West's 
life had been insured to the amount of $25,000, his neighbors 
immediately concluding that he had killed Turner and muti- 
lated the body beyond recognition, as he thought, in the hope 
that the insurance companies would pay his supposed widow 
the amounts for which he was insured. It was then deter- 
mined to watch his communications with his wife, and to note 
carefully her movements, their object evidently being to efifect 
a settlement with the companies, and then to retire to some 
distant locality to enjoy their ill-gotten wealth. 

After a singularly fruitless attempt at flight, West surprised 
everybody by unexpectedly returning to Dover and voluntarily 
delivering himself to the sheriff. He confessed that he had 
killed Turner, but urged that it was in self-defense; and he 
also revealed the whereabouts of the head, hands, and feet, 
w^hich he had secretly buried. After a brief search the various 
portions of the dead body, including the integument of which 
it had been denuded, were found. A coroner's jury was im- 
paneled at once, before which the prisoner appeared. The 
Attorney-General said to West that it was useless to state the 
nature of the charge that had been brought against him, and if 
he had any statement to make of his own free will, the jury 
would be glad to hear it. West thereupon, after a great deal 
of effort to control his almost overpowering emotion, pro- 
ceeded to make a detailed confession of his bloody work, as 
follows: 

My name is Isaac C. West, Jr.; my age is thirty years. I was born 
in Sussex County, but have lived in Dover and vicinity for three years. 
I don't claim to be a physician; my business is to administer gas 
for the treatment of disease. The killing took place on Monday 
night, December 2d. On Monday morning I was taking a bucket of 
water to my office, but don't remember the exact time. Turner came 
along about this time and said, " Boss, I'll carry that up for you." 
I told him I would carry it myself, but had some work for him, if he 
would do it; he said he would, and wanted to know what it was; I 
told him I had a large box at Capt. Battels'; he said he couldn't 
carry it then, that he was cutting up meat for Mrs. IMullin. but that 
he would attend to it some time in the afternoon. I went to Mrs. 
Mullin's about one o'clock on the same day; some colored men there 
said that Turner was not there, and had not been there, and they 



424 HOMICIDE. 

didn't know where he was. About three o'clock in the afternoon I 
met him on the street, and he said he was ready then to carry the 
box for me; he got a wheelbarrow of Mr. Collinson and took the 
box up to my room for me; I took out my pocket-book in my office 
in Kerbin's building, and paid him 25 cents; he then said, " Boss, you 
seem to be pretty flush; " then he wanted to know if I wouldn't give 
him money to get a drink. I told him I would if he would go down 
to the bar next door; he then said that after supper he would come 
back to bring water to fill my gasometer, and would not charge me 
anything for that, as I was so good to him; we went down together 
and into the bar-room below, and I paid for Turner's drink at Levey's 
bar; this was when the sun was about half an hour high. We came 
out together and separated as we came out of the door; Turner said, 
" Boss, I'll be on hand in half an hour." I met him again between 
that time and sunset, near the post-office. He said he was ready 
to take the water up, but I told him I was not ready then to go up 
to my room; a short time after that I met Turner near Hoflfecker 
and Stewart's store on the corner, talking to a colored man. I 
passed him and went on up to my office. I had just got there and 
unlocked the door when he came up. I went on upstairs ahead of 
him and unlocked the room door upstairs and went in ahead. I had 
taken my gasometer to pieces that day, intending to fasten a small 
sledge-hammer to the weights; the sledge-hammer was lying just 
inside of the door; the other weights were over in the corner, about 
eight feet farther on; one of the weights was a bolt or a piece of an 
iron axle; it was about two feet long, and an inch and a quarter in 
diameter. I had just gone over to where this bolt was lying, when I 
turned and saw Turner with the sledge-hammer in his hand in a 
threatening attitude. When he found that I saw he was coming, he 
said, " Give me your pocket-book, or I'll kill you." I then snatched 
up a bolt or a piece of axle, and just as I did so he struck at me 
with the sledge-hammer, the blow falling on my hat and denting the 
crown, but it did not touch my head, as I was stooping over. I then 
struck at him with the bolt or axle, intending to strike him on the 
head; but I missed his head and struck him on the neck below the 
ear; he fell, and I don't think he ever kicked afterwards. This was 
just after sunset; he fell over on his side. I then felt him and exam- 
ined his pulse, and found he was dead. I did not intend to kill him, 
but only intended to knock him down, so that he could not kill me. 
[After a long pause the prisoner continued:] I then left the body lying 
there, and came up to Fountain's hotel and got my supper, and didn't 
go back any more that evening, but I went back Tuesday morning, 
about ten or eleven o'clock; I then thought I would cut Turner in 
pieces and bury him; so I cut oflf his head, hands, and feet with my 
penknife (knife here shown had four blades, and was identified by 
the prisoner as the one with which he did the cutting). I cut off his 
head and feet with the penknife, and skinned the body; that is the 



HOMICIDE. 425 

knife (pointing to it) which lies on the table; I broke one of the 
blades cutting the bones; I broke several of the bones with the piece 
of axle; this was not all done before dinner; I don't know how much 
I did do before dinner; I went to dinner that day, but do not know 
the exact time; do not remember positively whether I was back at 
my office after dinner or not; in the afternoon I got a horse and car- 
riage of Mr. Fountain and went out to Hazletville, my home, and 
came back in the evening, thinking to take the remains away and 
bury them. I got back about six o'clock that evening, and brought 
down the skin of Turner from my office in a water-bucket, which was 
about half covered with a piece of paper; the horse smelled it and 
would not let me take it, so I set it down just inside of the outer 
door, and locked the door. I then brought the horse and carriage 
to the stable, and went up to the hotel and warmed myself. I then 
thought I would carry the remains in a bucket and bury them; I 
went back to my office about eight o'clock, and took the bucket 
which had the skin in it and started out on the street with it. I found 
the ground was frozen, and that I had nothing to dig a hole with, 
so I turned and brought it back to my room again. I remained in 
my room planning what to do, and then concluded I would tear a 
large box I had to pieces and make a box that would hold the remains, 
for the purpose of shipping them on the Delaware Railroad to some 
point, and then follow and bury them. I found it was getting late, 
and I could not stay any later that night. About eleven o'clock I 
returned to the hotel and went to bed; this was Tuesday; my foot 
was hurting me on Wednesday, and I didn't go back to my room 
till about 9 o'clock in the morning. I found the remains smelling 
so much that I could not ship them on the railroad. I got my dinner 
at the hotel that day and was about at different places that afternoon. 
I returned to my office in the afternoon, when I took my knife and 
cut off the nose and lips from the head, intending to skin it, and 
also cut some pieces from the abdomen. I then struck the head with 
the bolt or iron axle for the purpose of mashing it up so it could 
not be recognized, but found I could make no impression on it. 
I was afraid if I skinned the head it would still retain its shape and 
would be recognized. Afterwards I put the head in a bucket and took 
it down to a lime-heap near the railroad and rolled it in the lime, 
and then raked it back in the bucket and carried it to a place where 
I buried it, using a spade belonging to Mrs. Jones for this purpose. 
I buried the head under a heap of cut briars in the street near the 
corner of Water Street and the railroad. I then went back to my 
room about lo o'clock. I had a candle and two lamps at my office, 
one for burning alcohol and the other for burning kerosene. I took 
the bucket and put the skin in it to carry it away. Went out on the 
street with it and saw some person coming, when I took it back to 
my room again. I melted the end of a candle that I might stick the 
candle on the floor; I took one of the feet and poured some alcohol 



426 HOMICIDE. 

over it, thinking that by setting it on fire it would change the color 
of the foot; I set it on fire and spilt some over on the floor, which also 
ignited. I had previously placed the box over the body and put the 
small pieces on top of the box; I intended, if the alcohol did change 
the color of the skin on the feet, to spread the skin out on the floor 
and change the color of it by burning alcohol on it; but I found that 
the alcohol would not change the color of the skin. I intended, if 
the color was changed, to replace the skin on the body and fit it as 
well as I could. When the alcohol on the floor caught fire, I gathered 
up the feet, hands, and skin in my hands, and got out of the room 
as soon as I could, fearing the powder I had there would explode. 
I made an efifort to extinguish the flames, but failed. After getting 
outside I walked to the Methodist graveyard with the feet, hands, 
and skin; after I had gone some distance from the office I saw that 
the fire had gone out, and I started to go back, but I was afraid to 
go, remembering that the candle was on the floor. When near Mrs. 
Jones's new house I noticed the fire flash up again, and I turned and 
went back towards the graveyard, where I had left the feet, hands, and 
skin. I then took them up and carried them over into the Methodist 
graveyard, and there waited until the fire was put out. I buried the skin 
alongside of the railroad, and then went to get the hands and feet to 
bury them, when I heard the whistle of the four o'clock down train. 
I raked some lime over them and ran up to the depot and waited 
until the train arrived, when I went on board with a bundle of my 
clothes, and went to Delmar, from which place I walked to Salisbury, 
Md., on the railroad track. I went to Tracey's Hotel in that place 
and remained there until this (Friday) morning, December 6th, when 
I got on the north-bound train and came up to Farmington, where 
I got of! and walked to Harrington. I got on the evening train and 
came to Dover, and gave myself up to the Sheriff. I had previously 
called on a constable at Harrington to deliver myself up. My life 
is insured for $25,000; $10,000 in the New England Mutual, $5,000 in 
the John Hancock, $5,000 in the Delaware Mutual, and $5,000 in the 
^tna — about half in favor of my wife, and half in favor of myself; 
they were all life policies. I took out the ^tna policy five or six 
years ago, and the others last spring. I never had any previous diffi- 
culty with Turner; knew him only by the name of Joe Turner; never 
exchanged half a dozen words with him before that time. I bored 
the hole found in the office floor about a month ago with a brace 
and bit; it was intended to set a post in for my retort; the powder, 
about a quarter of a pound, was put into the hole on the 30th of 
November; I used it as a medicinal preparation. The bundle of 
clothes I took on the cars with me consisted of circular coat, pair of 
boots, and three shirts. I bundled them in my room on Wednesday 
night, and put them back of Holland's store, and left them in the 
graveyard until I heard the whistle of the train, when I returned and 
got them and took them to the depot platform; the same bundle of 



HOMICIDE. 427 

clothes, with the addition of a pair of pants, is at the Dover depot in 
a bag I bought at Salisbury. I tore Turner's clothes into strips, 
that they might not be recognized. They consisted of coat, pants, and 
shirt. I cut the tops of Turner's shoes ofif and threw the soles into 
the street, and left the uppers with the torn-up clothes, intending to 
carry all off and bury them. The front shutters of my office were 
closed when I left the last time. 

To this confession, which is verbatim, West appended his 
name, and was then remanded to jail. How any one with a 
grain of common-sense could expect the public to accept the 
ridiculous statements and explanations in his so-called con- 
fession, is incomprehensible. Its only effect among intelligent 
people was to arouse their bitter scorn and their inexpressible 
disgust. 

The principal points developed by the testimony for the 
State were briefly: that the annual premium on $25,000 of 
insurance at the age of twenty-nine years was not less than 
$600; that West was always impecunious, so much so at the 
time of the murder that he owed, for two weeks' board at his 
hotel, and was unable to pay it; that he had repeatedly visited 
one Frederick Windolph, a friend and member of a society lodge 
to which he belonged, before the commission of the crime, 
selecting him from among his acquaintances because Win- 
dolph's height, weight, and chest measurement corresponded 
nearly with his own; that he was continually manoeuvring to 
establish himself in Windolph's confidence ; and that, upon one 
pretense or another, he made several attempts to inveigle him 
into his laboratory. His diabolical design upon Windolph 
being clearly revealed by the murder of Turner, the testimony 
of Windolph was abundantly corroborated by other witnesses, 
who recalled incidents which, at the time, seemed strange, but 
which awoke no suspicion of ulterior purpose. It was also in 
evid'ence that West said he wanted to make money enough in 
the next two weeks to make or break him. Another witness 
said that he saw Turner in company with West in the after- 
noon of the day of the fire. Turner was under the influence 
of liquor when West treated him to brandy and asked him 
how much he could drink. Turner took a glass full. They 
left the bar-room together, and witness was surprised that 



428 HOMICIDE. 

West should treat a negro in that liberal way. Witness saw 
very little money in West's pocket-book. 

On behalf of the defense, testimony was introduced showing 
that the prisoner was insane; that his father was subject to fits 
of melancholy two or three years before the birth of his son 
Isaac C. West, Jr. But it became evident that the defense 
chiefly relied upon popular prejudice against color, and pop- 
ular feeling against hanging a white man for the pardonable 
offense of killing a negro. In trusting to this sentiment, a 
relic or legacy of the old slavery regime, the defense was not 
mistaken. 

The State introduced several medical witnesses to rebut the 
*' insane dodge," and the case was given to the jury, who re- 
turned a verdict of '' Not guilty on the ground of self-defense" 
The leading daily journal of the State of Delaware, comment- 
ing upon this preposterous verdict, says: 

"All that has ever been said about the stupidity of jurors and the 
uncertainty of jury trials is illustrated and enforced by the verdict 
in the West case. We would not have been surprised at an acquittal 
on the ground of insanity since we have read the strong array of evi- 
dence in support of that theory; but for a jury to disregard this, prac- 
tically declare its disbelief in it, and then to acquit this man on the 
ground of self-defense, is a performance which we can find no words 
to characterize, excuses to palliate, or reasons to explain. The pris- 
oner in his own laboratory killed Turner, then skinned him and cut 
him up, and finally set fire to the building with a view to destroying 
the disgusting evidences of his crime, and then ran away in disguise, 
and being caught, confessed his crime, but said he killed the man in 
self-defense; and upon his simple say-so, a jury, sworn to deliver a 
true verdict in the case, acquits him on the ground of self-defense! 
Such a verdict is not only simply preposterous — it is monstrous." 

It is some satisfaction to know that this inhuman villain did 
not escape scot-free. Upon being tried for the crime of arson, 
he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to two years' imprison- 
ment in the penitentiary. His second confession is a virtual 
admission of his murder of the poor negro. Unfortunately, a 
criminal cannot twice be put in jeopardy for the same offense. 



HOMICIDE. 429 

THE WICHITA OUTLAWS, WINNER AND McNUTT. 

In the summer of 1873, two young men, named Winner and 
McNutt, of Kansas City, obtained an insurance policy for 
$5,000 upon the life of McNutt, from the Metropolitan Life 
Insurance Company. The policy was in favor of a woman 
from Clay County, Missouri, with whom McNutt had been 
living about a year in Leavenworth and Kansas City. In 
order to legalize the policy, McNutt married the woman and 
soon after removed to Wichita, a new and flourishing town in 
Western Kansas, much frequented by stock-raisers. McNutt 
was accompanied by Winner. Just before Christmas, Winner 
returned to Kansas City for the purpose of finding a young 
man whom he could quietly murder, and whose body he 
could palm off on the insurance company as that of McNutt. 
He visited Mrs. McNutt, who had remained in Kansas City, 
and disclosed the plot to her. A young man named Sevier 
was induced to accompany Winner to Wichita on promise of 
a job of work, and was never seen alive after he arrived there 
with Winner. He was taken, according to McNutt's con- 
fession, to the paint-shop used by the murderers, and there 
intoxicated with brandy and drugged with ether. Cords were 
bound tightly around his body, his clothing was saturated with 
kerosene, and the shop was set on fire. His remains were 
found among the embers of the building, and at first were sup- 
posed to be those of McNutt. 

Winner reported that they had been attacked in the night, 
McNutt killed, and the shop robbed and burned. His story 
excited suspicion, for there were no bruises on his person ex- 
cepting slight scratches. Mrs. McNutt immediately claimed 
the $5,000 insurance, and the parties in interest at once pro- 
ceeded to investigate the case. 

On the day when this tragedy occurred, Mrs. McNutt wrote 
a letter to her husband, which was intercepted by the author- 
ities, McNutt having fled to Missouri under the assumed name 
of Leonard. In the course of the letter she wrote: 

"I am up to my eyes in trouble; I can't help it. for I must talk, 
although you will be angry with me for writing it. Do cut loose 
from that man Winner; he is a mean, pinchback liar. If you carry 
out the plans you have under way, we shall be ruined and disgraced. 



430 HOMICIDE. 

Before I will have the name of stealing and murdering for wealth, 
I'd beg on my hands and knees. I'd rather burn in fire and brim- 
stone, for your sake, than to have you branded as a murderer. Do 
let me sell my bed and clothing and come down to Wichita, and let 
us try and earn an honest living. I will work and do all I can to 
make our home happy and comfortable again. Life of my soul, let 
me warn you to cut loose from that wicked man. Winner, who is the 
cause of all our troubles." 

On the face of the envelope were the following instructions 
to the postmaster: 

Let no one have this but the one it is directed to, and if not called 
for within three days, return the same to No. 602 Main Street, Kansas 
City, only. Mrs. J. W. McNutt. 

The letter was read to the jury of inquest over Sevier's re- 
mains. Winner and Mrs. McNutt were arrested and impris- 
oned, and, notwithstanding Winner's refusal to make any 
disclosures, and Mrs. McNutt's rejection of overtures to turn 
State's evidence, the proofs against them rapidly accumulated. 
A clue to McNutt's whereabouts was followed up by ex-Sheriff 
William Smith, of Sedgwick County. Having obtained at 
Topeka a requisition from the Governor, he proceeded to 
Leavenworth City, and took the Chicago and Rock Island 
road to Plattsburg. Immediately after arrival at that point, 
he procured a horse and a guide, and rode all night in the 
supposed direction of the criminal, visiting a number of small 
country post-offices and inquiring at each whether a party by 
the name of Leonard procured mail there. Next day he 
reached the Glen Garden post-office, in Ray County, and was 
told that a party of that name was getting mail at that office, 
and that he was working on a farm about one mile from there. 

Smith left his horse and borrowed a shot-gun of his inform- 
ant, for the purpose of killing chickens, he said, and proceeded 
to the farm. On arriving at or near the farm-house, which 
stood in a clearing, he espied McNutt in the back yard chop- 
ping wood. He passed around the farm to the east side, 
where stood a large barn. He approached the barn, keeping 
it between himself and his game; then farther on towards the 
house, about a hundred yards and within twenty feet of where 
McNutt was chopping wood, stood a corn-crib. He worked 
his way cautiously up to the corner of the corn-crib, stepped 



HOMICIDE. 431 

out and cocked his gun on the chap, and told him to throw 
down his axe and hold up his hands, for he was his prisoner, 
which order he promptly obeyed, remarking while being hand- 
cuffed, *' Well, you have got me at last" Smith said, " Yes, 
I have been hunting you for some time." He was placed on 
a horse and taken to Plattsburg, and thence to Wichita. The 
skillful manner in which Smith ferreted out the rascal, and the 
coolness with which he effected the capture, commended him 
to general admiration. 

Reckless of consequences, the wretched McNutt voluntarily 
unbosomed himself of the particulars of the tragedy. The 
atrocious nature of the crime is revealed in the following 
confession, to which, when written out, his signature was 
appended: 

I was born in the State of Missouri, on the 226. day of April, 1842; 
am thirty-one years of age; was married to my present wife last Oc- 
tober; have no children, nor do I wish any, for the legacy that I 
should leave them would not be of a very desirable character — that 
which Cain left his descendants. By trade I am a painter; worked 
at my trade in Kansas City for several years before I came down to 
this place; met Winner last May; we were a good deal together. He 
proposed several ways by which we could make some of that desir- 
able article — money; but I would not listen to him, as I was afraid to 
bring disgrace upon my family. Among other things he proposed 
that we should organize a band of bandits, and go over the country, 
plundering and robbing. He related to me some of the most dia- 
bolical crimes that I had ever heard, saying that he was the author 
and that he had never been under any inconvenience with the law; 
that the law was a farce, and a man with common-sense and a little 
cheek could elude and defy it at pleasure. But I would not go in 
with him; T told him I was no rogue, and would not be one for any 
amount of money. He laughed at me, and called me chicken-hearted. 
At last, towards the close of September he proposed to me the crime 
that was perpetrated here last December. I would not listen to him 
at first; but finally, in an evil moment, I allowed him to talk it up 
to me, and he painted it in such glowing and sure colors that I began 
to feel interested in it, and after awhile was carried away with the 
intoxicating thought that I might yet be worth some money, and not 
have to be a dog all my life. We talked up the best mode for the 
accomplishment of our object. I had my life insured in the sum of 
$5,000; but as it would not be paid unless to some near relative and one 
whom we could trust, it was decided that I had better marry the 
woman with whom I was then living, and we would be sure of not 
losing what we committed crime for. It took us a long time to 



432 HOMICIDE. 

decide where we could best accomplish our object. At first it was 
decided that Kansas City would be the best place, and we even went 
so far as to engage a store on Main Street, where we could hang 
out our sign as painters, and by this means be enabled to have on 
hand a large stock of oils without attracting or exciting suspicion. 
But one day, an unlucky day for us both, Winner said that he had 
found a much better place, a city where we could execute our plans 
in daylight without being bothered with the law; a place where men 
were killed every day in the week, and that place was Wichita. He 
showed me several pieces in the newspapers about murders that had 
been committed, and in them it stated that the oflfenders were allowed 
their liberty. We came down to this place and opened out our shop 
in a small frame building on Main Street, over a millinery shop. We 
worked at our trade for a number of weeks and built up quite a 
business. I tried to persuade Winner to give it up, but he would not, 
Not knowing who we could get for our victim delayed us for a long 
time; a citizen of Wichita would not do, as it would create such a 
sensation that some of the facts might come out. At last Winner 
went to Kansas City, saying that he had a friend who was looking 
for a job, and would bring him home and use him, and that v/e could 
finish him up the same night. He was gone about a week, and said that 
he had made arrangements with a painter by the name of Sevier, to 
come down and work for them, and that he would be down the next 
evening. I went to the depot to meet him, but he did not come. We 
received a letter next day, stating that he had no money, and the 
pass that Winner gave him would not answer. We sent him the 
money by mail, and for fear that he would not get it, telegraphed 
also. He came down on the 12.30 train next evening. Winner met 
him at the depot, and brought him up to our room, where he slept. 
At this time we had about thirty gallons of benzine and twenty gallons 
of coal oil, together with a large amount of oils. Sevier appeared 
like a very clever, good-hearted fellow. My heart failed me so that 
I could do nothing, but Winner was in his element; he knew just how 
to do everything, and do it well. We began to prepare him for death 
by giving him brandy to drink, of which we had a large supply. 
After he had drank about a quart we mixed ether with the rest, as 
it would not leave any deposit in the stomach. When he was so 
thoroughly unconscious that he could do nothing, we were prepared 
to do the bloody work which Winner's hands itched to perform. 
Winner poured down Sevier's throat about a pint of ether which he 
had brought from Kansas City. We then placed his head in an iron 
pot filled with benzine, and set fire to it. We watched him as his 
head began to sim.mer and crackle like burning meat, but as he was 
unconscious, I do not think he felt any pain. When his features were 
burned and disfigured beyond recognition we laid him in the bed, 
which was saturated and dripping with oil. Our next operation was 
to fix up Winner so that it would give the public the impression 



HOMICIDE. 433 

that some one had tried to murder him as well as myself. I took a 
bunch of flesh between my thumb and finger and run the blade of a 
pair of scissors through and cut it open; we then opened one of 
Sevier's veins and took out about a quart of blood, which Winner 
spread over himself, and thus made himself look as though he had 
lost a great deal of blood. I then took my departure, leaving my 
vest and empty pocket-book at the back of the shop, and left on the 
train for Atchison, and from there went to Missouri. I escaped 
detection on the train by riding between the baggage car and locomo- 
tive. Ever since then I have been in Missouri. I knew nothing 
about the developments until two days before my arrest, when I read 
the verdict of the jury in the Journal of Commerce. I do not know 
what Winner did after I left, but am sure he must have acted his part 
well, as he is a most accomplished rogue. 

This is all I know of the affair. I tried my best to. persuade Winner 
to give up the thought of the crime, but could not succeed. I told 
him it would not succeed, especially at Wichita, for the ofificers are 
too sharp and vigilant, more so than any other city I know of in the 
West. I don't know how the officers found out where I was. 

J. W. McNuTT. 

COUNT POMMERAIS AND MADAME PAUW. 

In reasoning from circumstantial evidence, increased cogency 
is often given to the general weight of evidence by the con- 
spicuous presence of an urgent motive for crime. A very 
interesting illustration is furnished in the trial, in France, of the 
Count de la Pommerais for the murder of Madame Pauw. It 
appeared that Madame Pauw had been left a widow in 1859, 
with three children. The prisoner was a physician who knew 
and attended her husband. Madame Pauw became the pris- 
oner's mistress up to the time of his marriage in i860 with 
Mademoiselle Dubizy. In June, 1863, the prisoner proposed 
to the deceased to organize a fraud on six French and two 
English life insurance companies, by insuring the life of the 
deceased, and then, on her simulating illness, by inducing the 
insurance companies to exchange the policies for annuities. 
Insurances were accordingly effected for 550,000 francs, for 
which the policies were made transferable by endorsement. 
The prisoner advanced the premiums, having the policies 
transferred by Madame Pauw to himself by deed, and a will 
made by her in his own favor. The motive, of course, alleged 
for the murder of the deceased was, that by her death the pris- 



434 HOMICIDE. 

oner would come into immediate possession of the 550,000 
francs, and be relieved from what was possibly an inconvenient 
connection. The prisoner induced Madame Pauw to feign 
illness; and it was alleged in the acte d' accusation that in 
November, 1863, he administered digitalis. Dr. Gaudinot was 
called in, and was told she had fallen down-stairs. This was 
contradicted at the trial by Madame Pauw's children. Madame 
Pauw died. Drs. Tardieu and Roussin were charged by the 
Court to make a post-mortem examination. They made sev- 
eral experiments, and in their official report concluded that 
the deceased had died by poison. Dr. Roussin thought the 
poison was digitalis, of which the prisoner had large quanti- 
ties in his possession. It was alleged that the prisoner well 
knew that digitalis leaves no traces. In the course of the 
experiments, digitalis was tried on dogs and cats, and they 
died in the same way as other animals to which expectorated 
matter and contents of the digestive tube of the deceased had 
been administered. Dr. Herbert, on the contrary, thought 
that the fact of the floor of the deceased's room, which had 
contained matter in a state of putrefaction, having been re- 
cently scraped, was sufficient to account for all the circum- 
stances of the death. It appeared that the prisoner had spoken 
freely to several witnesses about the contemplated fraud on 
the insurance companies. Now, if this fraud had been seri- 
ously contemplated, or actually completed, and the prisoner 
was in the way of being put in the receipt of an income during 
Madame Pauw's life, instead of the expectation of a lump-sum 
at her death, the motive, of course, would have been all the 
other way. It was the prisoner's object to show that he did so 
seriously intend to carry out this fraud up to the last. And 
the case is almost unique in exhibiting a prisoner laboring 
to prove his innocence of one crime by proving his complicity 
in another only a few degrees less abominable. Some of his 
statements were inconsistent with manifest facts; some — such 
as his assertion that he paid the deceased an annuity of iioo — 
suicidal to his own professed motives. The result was his con- 
viction and execution. In this case the evidence was, on 
other grounds, just of that uncertain description which makes 
evidence of efficient motive all-important. The defense, cer- 



HOMICIDE. * 435 

tainly, was most plausible and ing-enious, and if concerted con- 
temporaneously with the crime, showed a marvellous foresight 
and sagacity. For there were three courses left to the jury: 
the prisoner might have been proved guilty of no crime at 
all; or of attempted fraud, and not of the murder; or of the 
murder and not the attempted fraud. A distinct conception 
of the several motives likely to be present on each successive 
hypothesis, was the most critical part of the investigation. 

THE HARTUNG CRIME.* 

Bernard Hartung was a merchant at Magdeburg in the be- 
ginning of 1853, ^^^ was well known for his cultivation and his 
apparent business success. He had been three times married, 
and was now living in much comfort, though in point of fact 
laboring under great pecuniary embarrassment, with a wife to 
whom he was undoubtedly much attached. Coming home, 
one evening, he found his aunt (his mother's sister), Emma 
Schroeder, an unmarried woman of about forty, spending the 
evening with his wife. Tea was over, and after a little pleasant 
and cheerful conversation, in which they urged him to sit down 
to the table and eat, he got up, saying he had to go out for a 
few minutes, but would soon be back. He returned with some 
cakes in his hand (baisers), of a kind of which he knew his aunt 
was particularly fond. With a smile on his face he called for 
two dessert plates, and put a cake on each, one of which he 
placed directly opposite his wife, and the other to his aunt. 
The latter tasted hers first, and remarked upon something 
gritty, when the wife offered to change with her, which, how- 
ever, she laughingly declined. At ten o'clock the aunt re- 
turned home, and at midnight was seized with violent pains. 
At dawn a physician was called in, who could do nothing more 
than speak of the improbabilities of recovery. Hartung was 
sent for, but apparently questioning the reality of the danger, 
he went down to his counting-room, making his partner's 
absence the ground of excuse. At three o'clock in the after- 
noon, however, the condition of the sufferer was much worse: 
her breath became lighter; she had fallen into a comatose 

* Wharton & Stille, Medical Jurisprudence. 



436 HOMICIDE. 

condition, from which it was impossible to arouse her, and this 
news being sent to him, he at last hastened to her bedside. 
She w^as dead, having sunk away in perfect calmness. He at 
first was overcome with a paroxysm of grief, and it was some 
time before he recovered sufficiently to enable him to inquire 
into the circumstances of her illness. The nurse mentioned 
casually the cake which the deceased had eaten the previous 
night, which, during her illness, she had said she feared was 
not entirely right. Hartung did not move a single muscle. 
The nurse repeated the entire remark of the deceased: ''Per- 
haps that cake was not quite right, perhaps it was poisoned." 
Hartung smiled compassionately and said, " She was raving." 
So, indeed, all the bystanders thought. He then proceeded to 
•examine into, her effects. She was in poor circumstances, 
supporting herself in part by music teaching, and but a few 
hundred dollars were found, which were divided equally be- 
tween Hartung and his two sisters, they being the heirs-at-law. 
The funeral w^as ordered in some haste, but this was attributed 
by Hartung to the illness of a daughter of a lady lodging in 
the same house. In the mean time the dying statements of 
the deceased began to be noised about, and public suspicion 
rose so high that in a few days Hartung was arrested. He 
opposed a bold and determined front to the officers, and indig- 
nantly demanded his discharge. He fell into the hands of a 
police magistrate distinguished for his tact and experience, 
and it was then that a scene took place so characteristic of the 
present method of German procedure, that we translate it in 
full from the official report. 

It was evening. Two lights, standing in the center of the 
green-covered table, lighted the office sufficiently to enable 
everything in it to be seen. Hartung did not know the magis- 
trate. They saluted each other, and the magistrate, looking at 
him calmly but firmly in the eye, stated to him the nature of 
the charge as to which he was about to be examined. Har- 
tung was unacquainted with the searching nature of the pro- 
cess to which he was about to be subjected, and found its 
solemnity and pointedness not a little oppressive. The quiet 
calmness with which the magistrate enumerated to him 
the several grounds of suspicion threw him at last into a 



HOMICIDE. 437 

confusion irom which he was unable to rally. The magistrate 
watched him narrowly, and then laid before him in a very few 
words the only means by which he could escape from the dis- 
tressing incertitude into which he was placed — viz.: by a free 
and open confession to place himself right before God and 
man. Hartung sank under this new appeal. He could no 
longer retain his former threatening bearing, and he suddenly 
turned and asked, " To whom have I the honor to speak? " 
The answer paralyzed him still more, for it gave the name of 
an officer famous in the detection of crime and for his skillful 
treatment of the accused. He asked for a private interview, 
when the magistrate continued to inquire whether he was con- 
scious of guilt. " In part, in part," was the agonized reply. 
" A partial guilt is impossible here," said the magistrate, 
calmly. " Are you guilty of your aunt's death, or are you not 
guilty?" The reply was, " Guilty," and the magistrate seized 
this moment of paroxysm to draw forth a full confession. " If 
you confess that you poisoned your aunt, you must give your 
reasons." Hartung shuddered; his pride could hardly bear 
this strain. " Was it your intention to destroy your aunt by 
poison?" "Yes, that was my object." "Was your motive 
hatred?" "No." "Did you expect to gain anything?" 
Hartung shuddered again, and it was with difficulty that at last 
he replied, "Whatever money my aunt left, I have secured; it 
fell to me as rightful heir." He then went on to excuse him- 
self on the ground that his aunt was about to make a match 
with a person far her junior in years, whose object, evidently, 
was to obtain the little property of which she was possessed. 
He then went on to explain how he had effected the poisoning, 
which was by mixing arsenic with the sugar on the cake. 

The next step was to fortify this confession by the examina- 
tion of the corpse. The body seemed entirely unchanged, and 
all expression of pain was drawn from the countenance by the 
calm which succeeds death. Hartung was brought to view the 
body, and with the exception of a slight recoil, retained entire 
composure. The post-mortcni gave the most unmistakable evi- 
dence of the presence of arsenic. In the examination of Har- 
tung's house, similar traces were discovered. An amount of 
pure arsenic was found which was enough to poison half a city. 



438 HOMICIDE. 

Of this, however, Hartung denied all knowledge. The only 
answer he would give was that it was the refuse of what he had 
wanted in the store, and that it had been cast away there and 
forgotten. And at the close of the primary hearings, he sol- 
emnly purged himself of having been concerned in any prior 
similar violations of the law. 

The suspicions, however, that had been excited against him 
now began to extend over a wider field. Cases of prior sudden 
death were enumerated within the circle of his immediate influ- 
ence, and the following remarkable facts were brought to light, 
connecting him unmistakably with the poisoning of his second 
wife under the following circumstances: 

In 1850, Marie Braconier, to whom he had shortly before 
been married, and who was then in the freshness and fulness of 
early womanhood, told one of her own female friends that she 
was troubled with an anxious presentiment arising from her 
husband, who was then much embarrassed in his circum- 
stances, pressing her to consent to have her life insured. Her 
feelings of dread arose not from suspicion, but from an unwill- 
ingness to unite in a step which she could scarcely understand, 
and which was necessarily beset with gloomy associations. 
She yielded, however, but scarcely had she done so, when, on 
a visit to her mother, she was attacked, immediately on leav- 
ing her husband's house, with symptoms which were attributed 
to the then prevailing epidemic of cholera. Her strong con- 
stitution, however, surmounted the attack, and after a few 
days she returned home. Scarcely had she got there when 
Hartung was seized, or pretended to be seized, with the pre- 
monitories of the epidemic, manifesting great fear, resorting 
to every paUiative in his power, and finally yielding to her 
anxious entreaties to be put to bed. His wife devoted her- 
self to him, never leaving his side, and it consequently fell to 
her lot to administer to him a broth which he induced her to 
join with him in drinking. Of what took place then there was 
no evidence, as they were alone, except that a few hours after- 
wards she was seized with violent pains, which shortly after 
ended in her death. At first no suspicion arose. The attend- 
ing physician, Dr. Niemann, signed the usual certificate that the 
death was occasioned by Asiatic cholera. The insurance com- 



HOMICIDE. 439 

pany, however, which was so closely affected by her death, 
began naturally enough to feel some curiosity when called upon 
to pay. This was increased by the extraordinary activity with 
which Hartung pressed for the payment. A voluminous cor- 
respondence ensued, in which the company called for a post- 
mortem examination, which, however, he very artfully succeeded 
in avoiding. At last, by threats, on one hand, of exposure of 
a corporation which was willing to receive premiums, but not 
to pay losses, and partly by an appeal to his own desolate 
situation after all his great losses, he succeeded in obtaining 
payment in full. 

The examination into the causes of the aunt's death, how- 
ever, led to a reconsideration of the case of the wife. The 
exhumation of her remains was at last determined on. A 
commission was constructed for the purposes of a post-mortem 
examination, on which were placed eminent medical experts, 
among whom v^^as the physician who had attended the deceased 
in her last moments. Twenty months had elapsed since death, 
but the degree of preservation was such as to leave no question 
of identity. The result of the chemical examination was de- 
cisive. An amount of arsenic was found in the stomach 
abundantly enough to have caused her death. Strong circum- 
stantial evidence also existed, showing the cause of the wife's 
first sickness to have been the same as her last. When these 
facts were mentioned to Hartung, he replied merely by pro- 
testing against the prejudice that had been excited against 
him, but denying all agency in his wife's death. 

In March, 1853, his trial came on in Magdeburg, when, to 
the surprise of all, he pleaded not guilty to his aunt's murder, 
and maintained that his confession to the police magistrate was 
dictated by the desire only to get rid of a harassing and pro- 
tracted examination, and to bring on a speedy trial. The 
result was, however, unavoidable. He was convicted of his 
aunt's murder, and was finally executed. Before his execution 
he made a full confession of having poisoned both his aunt 
and his wife. 



440 HOMICIDE. 

KATHERINE GING, THE DUPE AND VICTIM OF HARRY 

HAYWARD. 

In the city of Minneapolis, at the comer of Thirteenth Street 
and Hennepin Avenue, there is an apartment building of 
somewhat pretentious size and appearance known as the 
Ozark Flats. It is, or was, the property of W. W. Hayward, a 
gentleman of wealth, who resided in the building with his fam- 
ily, consisting of his wife and his two sons, Adry A. and Harry 
T. Hayward. The elder son, Adry, was married, and with his 
family occupied apartments near his father's. At the time 
of the tragic occurrence of which we write, December, 1894, 
Harry, the younger son, was 29 years of -age, and was known 
as a " fast " young man, who was recognized by if not actually 
admitted to the better class of society. He was strongly ad- 
dicted to gambling and played whenever he could obtain funds 
for the purpose. His father had started him in life with a 
handsome property, both real and personal, all of which was 
lost in gambling ventures. In personal appearance he was of 
excellent physique, nearly six feet in height, well propor- 
tioned, erect figure, fair complexion, and of attractive manners. 
It was an easy matter for such as he to win the admiration, 
and eventually the absolute confidence, of a rather common- 
place but ambitious young woman, Miss Katherine Ging, a 
dressmaker, who was about his own age, tall, and although 
of masculine type was passably good-looking. She occupied 
business parlors in what is known as the Syndicate Block, 
Minneapolis, where she had built up a profitable business 
through her thrift and industry, and was reputed to have 
accumulated a few thousand dollars, which she had placed at 
interest. She resided in the Ozark Flats, where she had apart- 
ments with her niece, Miss Ireland. 

On November 23d, 1894, Miss Ging called at the Minne- 
apolis agency of the Travelers Insurance Company of Hart- 
ford, Conn., and inquired for Mr. Purple, an agent of the 
company, with whom she was acquainted. Agent Purple being 
temporarily absent from the office, an appointment was made 
with Miss Ging for him to call at her dressmaking shop on 
the afternoon of the same day. Agent Purple called agree- 
ably to the appointment, and was informed by Miss Ging 



HOMICIDE. 441 

that she had decided to take out some accident insurance, and 
the agent took her application for what is known as an annuity 
accident poHcy, in the sum of $5,000. The poHcy was deUv- 
ered to her that evening, for which she gave her check in 
payment of premium. The next day Agent Purple saw her 
again and explained that the policy was payable, $1,000 upon 
proofs of death, and $1,000 annually thereafter during four 
years. She then told him that she intended to borrow $7,000, 
and wanted to use the policy as collateral security for the 
loan. The agent suggested that a policy paying the entire 
sum at one time would be better for that purpose, and so a 
new application was taken and a new policy written, dated 
November 24th, 1894, and was delivered by Agent Purple to 
Miss Ging at her room the next day, November 25th, at 
which time Harry Hayward was present. Three or four days 
later Hayward came to the office of the insurance agent, hav- 
ing with him the accident policy recently written upon Miss 
Ging, together with a recent policy upon her life written by the 
New York Life Insurance Company. He also had assign- 
ments of both policies made by Miss Ging to himself. The 
assignments were in duplicate, and he left one to be forwarded 
to the home office of the Travelers. 

Ten days after this insurance was written, at about half-past 
8 o'clock on the evening of December 3d, 1894, the dead body 
of Katherine Ging was discovered in a lonely part of a road 
running through a tamarack swamp within the park system 
lying on the outskirts of Minneapolis, and near the eastern 
shore of a sheet of water known as Lake Calhoun. A young 
man, a railway employe, was returning home that night, 
having taken a street railway car, which brought him to the 
road in question and to a point within about fifty yards of 
where the body lay that evening. When he first got off the 
car he heard a carriage coming through the marsh road, but 
could see nothing. Walking on, he met a running horse with 
top-buggy. He stepped to one side, thinking the driver was 
going pretty fast, but paid no further attention to the matter 
and proceeded in the direction of his house, when he vers- ncarly 
stepped upon the dead body of a woman lying in the center 
of the road. He went directly home, obtained assistance. 



442 HOMICIDE. 

and returned to the place, when it was observed that the body 
was lying partly on its side and partly on its face. A carriage 
robe of fur was lying tumbled up about the body. The body 
was warm. It was supposed that a carriage accident had hap- 
pened, and a physician was summoned. In the mean time a 
patrol-wagon and police officers arrived at the place. The 
woman being pronounced dead, the body was at once taken 
to the morgue, where it was more critically examined and a 
pistol-shot wound of the head was discovered, the bullet hav- 
ing entered at the back of the right ear, and passing through 
the brain had lodged in the left orbit. Up to that time no 
one had identified the body. 

At. about 9 o'clock that night a horse and buggy without a 
driver came into the livery stable of George Goossman. The 
horse belonged there, and the fact of its walking in alone 
attracted no attention at the time. The man in charge tmhar- 
nessed and took the horse to its stable. On returning to the 
buggy he found that the robe was missing, and that there was 
a pool of clotted blood upon the cushioned seat. He sum- 
moned assistance, and police headquarters were called up by 
telephone. It was soon learned that Katherine Ging had hired 
this livery horse that evening, and the body lying in the 
morgue was soon after quickly identified. Miss Ging had 
engaged this team of the carriage agent of the West Hotel, 
whom she knew and who lived at the Ozark Flats. She had 
previously driven this particular horse, which was gentle and 
quiet, and had ordered it for 7 o'clock that evening, to call 
for it at the West Hotel. She was at the hotel promptly, got 
into the buggy and drove off. 

A careful, searching, and exhaustive investigation was 
quickly set on foot, and the mayor of the city, Hon. W. H. 
Eustis, gave his personal and most valuable efforts to solve 
the mystery of what appeared to be a most unaccountable 
murder. Suspicion quickly pointed out Harry Hayward as 
the person most intimately acquainted with the murdered 
woman and best informed as to her social relations, her 
habits, and her business dealings. At first Hayward was con- 
sulted in rather an advisory capacity, and he was asked to give 
his opinion upon the several theories that were being evolved. 



HOMICIDE. 443 

With the utmost composure, and thoroughly self-possessed, 
he showed a willingness and a desire to follow up every clue, 
and if possible hunt down the perpetrator of the crime. It 
was clear, from the start, that he did not commit the deed, 
for at the hour of its occurrence he was enjoying himself at 
the Grand Opera House in the company of an estimable young 
lady whom he had escorted there. Still, he was regarded 
with lurking mistrust early in the case, and through his 
brother Adry, the evidences of crime were quickly confronting 
him. It appear3 that the Hayward family had a friend and 
legal adviser in the person of Mr. L. M. Stewart, a wealthy 
gentleman who had retired from the active practice of his 
profession of attorney-at-law, and through some vague in- 
stinct of honesty Adry Hayward had sought this friend for 
advice. The circumstances may best be related in the fol- 
lowing letter addressed by Mr. Stewart to the county attorney : 

" Three days before the murder of Miss Ging, Adry A. Hayward, 
the brother of Harry, came into my office very greatly excited and 
told me that Harry and a confederate were going to murder Miss 
Ging in order to get money from her life insurance, and he told me 
that Harry pretended to have loaned her the money and had man- 
aged to have her display the money in large sums in several places, 
and that Harry had also displayed Miss Ging's notes, taken also to 
many people, as also her life-insurance policies, and that she was to 
be got out riding and killed in order to get the life-insurance money, 
which he said was $10,000. In fact, he stated substantially all the 
particulars as they have occurred, and said he learned them from 
Harry, and as I said, he was greatly excited and wanted to know 
what could be done to prevent it. I hadn't the least belief that there 
was any foundation for his fears, and told him it was only some of 
Harry's big talk; told him if there had been any such scheme on the 
part of Harry he certainly would not be such a fool as to tell of it. 
But he seemed perfectly convinced that the intention to murder the 
girl was genuine, and said it was certainly planned and would be 
accomplished in a very few days. I repeated to him again and again 
that while Harry was wicked he was not a fool, and that he certainly 
would not have given himself away in advance in that way if there 
had been any intention to perpetrate such a crime. But he did not 
seem to doubt the genuineness of the intended murder. If I had sup- 
posed there was the most remote possibility of his story, or rather 
belief, being founded on genuine intention to commit a crime, I should 
have advised him at once to go to the superintendent of police and 
lay the matter before him; but I had no belief whatever in its being 



444 HOMICIDE. 

anything but bluster and bluff on the part of Harry. But event.s 
proved conclusively that Adry was right. I knew long ago that 
Harry was one of the most mendacious liars and dishonest rogues I 
had ever seen, but I had no idea of his being such a criminal. When 
Adry came into my office to tell me the above, he said he wanted 
to talk with me confidentially. But crimes of this character should 
be promptly punished to the full extent of the law." 

This letter put a quietus upon all investigation in other 
directions, and warrants were issued for the arrest of both 
Adry and Harry Hayward. Both were soon in custody, but 
before being locked up Adry was fully interrogated upon the 
points indicated in the foregoing letter. Under the advice of 
Mr. Stewart, he consented to make a clean breast of it, and 
he related to the officials the following story. He subse- 
quently testified to the same facts at the trial of his brother 
Harry. He said Harry had told him that he had made gam- 
bling investments for Miss Ging, sometimes winning, some- 
times losing. He obtained considerable money from her for that 
purpose. Some time during the month of July previous Harry 
told him that he had Miss Ging's note that she wanted to get 
discounted, being short of funds. The note was secured by 
mortgage upon some mill property, and the mill was insured. 
He wanted Adry to go with him to the place and see the 
miller. Adry declined at first, but finally consented and went 
with him, driving there in a carriage. On arriving at the place 
Harry inquired of the miller about getting the money on the 
notes, and failing in that asked to look over the property. 
Adry remained in the carriage while Harry went into the mill. 
About two or three weeks afterward the mill burned down. 
The insurance was subsequently paid. About two months 
later, in September, Harry sounded Adry upon the subject 
of killing Miss Ging, asking if he, Adry, would kill a woman 
for $2,000. Harry suggested that the woman could be very 
easily shot, that he, Harry, could drive out with her or could 
have her taken out, and that nobody would suspect them. 
Adry declared that he would have nothing to do with killing 
people, but Harry recurred to the subject at various times 
and spoke of employing a certain hackman for the purpose. 
He detailed several plans to accomplish his murderous pur- 



HOMICIDE. 445 

pose. One was to take the girl out in a boat and drown her, 
but he feared that would look like suicide and defeat the collec- 
tion of the insurance money. He spoke of driving out in a 
buggy with her, and wondered how she would fall if she 
struck a bowlder by the roadside — whether she would fall 
towards the bowlder or from the bowlder when she struck. 
Later on, Harry concluded that Adry would not answer his 
purpose and told him so, declaring that he had no nerve, but 
he had now found the right man, who had nerve and who 
knew enough to keep his mouth shut. He said the man was 
Claus Blixt, a stationary engineer having charge of the engine 
at the Ozark Flats. A few days later Harry exhibited to 
Adry a package of bills, saying there was seven thousarfd dol- 
lars in the roll. Harry said in the presence of others whom 
Adry names, that he was going to invest seven thousand 
dollars in business with a young lady; that he was going to 
take out insurance upon her life and that she was going to 
give him her notes secured by the life insurance. At a later 
interview Harry informed Adry that Miss Ging had taken a 
$5,000 life policy only, instead of $7,000, as had been planned, 
but she had remedied the defect by taking a $5,000 accident 
policy also. " And now," said Harry, '' I will make more 
money than I had intended to; I will make the notes now for 
the full amount of the policies, $10,000." According to Adry's 
best recollection, about the 22d or 23d of November, Harry 
wrote the notes f.or Miss Ging to sign, writing them in Adry's 
presence and on his father's desk. There were three or four 
of these notes. On Friday, the day after Thanksgiving, 
Harry said to his brother Adry, " I was coming down this 
morning and Blixt asked me if it was not time to sacrifice the 
dressmaker." Adry replied, '' Harry, you are not going to 
kill the girl, are you? " " Yes, we are," he says, '' she will have 
to be the victim this time." 

Claus Blixt was taken into custody and locked up at the 
police station. At first he denied any knowledge of the matter, 
but after being alone awhile in his cell he expressed a desire 
to see the mayor and chief-of-police. They went to him, and 
to them the miserable wretch expressed a desire to make a 
truthful confession and relieve his conscience of its burden. 



446 HOMICIDE. 

A stenographer was called in and every word was duly noted 
down. Soon the whole secret was disclosed, and the perpe- 
trators of the crime were in the hands of the law. At the 
trial of Hayward, Blixt became an important witness, and his 
testimony (when divested of a vast amount of superfluous 
matter) was substantially as follows: 

" My full name is Claus Alfred Blixt, age 41, born in Sweden; came 
to this country about i860; have lived in Minneapolis about eight years; 
v^ent to v^ork for W. W. Hayv^ard in April last, having charge of 
the steam machinery of Ozark Flats; married, and reside at the Ozark. 
I first met Harry Hayward in his father's office. After I started in 
to work at the Ozark I saw him once in a while up to about six or 
seven weeks prior to my arrest; during those weeks he was down in 
the basement, where I worked, most every day. It was my duty to 
run the elevator at noon hours and in the evening. I had seen Kath- 
erine Ging there; was not acquainted with her; knew her by sight, 
that was all. About a week or so before this affair occurred, I needed 
a throttle valve, and I spoke to Harry about it and he said come 
down to the office to-morrow and he would go with me and buy one. 
Next day W. W. Hayward told me to hurry down to the office 
because Harry was waiting for me. I went there and saw Harry sit- 
ting near the table and Miss Ging at one end of the table. He was 
writing and putting up some papers, and he told her that she should 
sign the note and she signed it, and he asked me to sign as witness. 
There were two bunches of money laying on the table. After I had 
witnessed the note he told her to take the money and go into the 
other room and count it. After Miss Ging left Harry went with me 
and bought the throttle valve and then we went to the Ozark. In the 
evening he came to the Ozark basement and said to me, referring to 
Miss Ging, * I am going to kill her; I am going to take her down ' or 
' I have taken her down already to gambling.' He said she gambled 
as high as $1,000 and even bought green goods. And now, he said, 
'After this I am going to take her to the restaurant and have her 
show this money, and then I will remark,' he says, ' that she is awful 
careless to show so much money, and that she will be robbed and 
killed for it.' He said that he was going to kill her, and that he 
thought he was going to make about $10,000 on her. During the 
week he kept on telling me how he had taken her around the restau- 
rant, and showing $2,000, setting it in a tumbler beside her when she 
ate; and then the waiter remarked and he remarked that she was 
awfully careless because she had so much money with her and she 
might get killed for it, and he took her over to St. Paul and had her 
do the same thing over there. He said to me that she wanted to marry 
him and that he had promised to marry her. He said he was going 
to get her to assign the life insurance over to him as security for 



HOMICIDE. 447 

money. Then he said to me, ' I have got all the money from her, 
and now I am going to have her sign the life insurance over to me 
and then kill her.' The witness related several plans which Harry 
had 'formed for killing Miss Ging. In all of them it was intended to 
have the surrounding circumstances such as to give the injuries the 
appearance of having been effected through accidental means, or else 
intentionally inflicted for the purpose of robbery. Finally, ' on Mon- 
day evening, December 3d,' the witness said, ' Harry came to the 
basement, bringing a bottle of whiskey.' He said: * Blixt, here is 
some whiskey.' I said, ' I don't want any whiskey; I don't drink 

whiskey.' ' Well,' he said, ' you fool, this is not common 

whiskey, take some of it.' I drank some of it and he said, * I am 
going out to-night and I want you to help me. You have got to help 
me. To-night she is going to die. It cuts no figure, but to-night 
she is going to die,' and then he told me about everything he was 
going to do. I said, ' Harry, can't you make money some other way 
and not kill the poor girl?' He said, ' I would rather kill her than 
any dog I ever saw; it does me good to kill people.' He told me he 
had killed two before and it was nothing to kill people. I told him 
I could not help him and he said, ' Well, Blixt, you have got to help 
me or I will have to kill you. If you don't help me I will kill you, 
and if you help me you are all right/ He says, * Come here,' and he 
called me over to the bench, and he says, * Now, I don't believe in 
your wife. I think it good if she was not living, and I want to kill 
your wife because I am afraid she might hurt both you and me.' I 
said * No, I am not afraid of my wife; she don't know anything and 
I promise you I will not tell her anything.' I says, * Harry, whatever 
you do with me, don't hurt my wife.' He says, ' If you come to my 
wishes and do what I want you to do, your wife is all right, but if 
you don't, she is not.' ' He said, ' I have this plan all laid out so 
that the smartest detectives in the world can't get at it. Go and do 
what I tell you to do and your wife is all right.' I says, ' All right, 
Harry, I will do whatever you say.' Then he came to me and says, 
* Now, you take my revolver, but I want you to write a receipt to 
show that you have bought my revolver of me.' And I says, ' I won't 
sign it — I won't sign any receipt' ' Well,' he says, * if you don't 
want to do that, then I want you to tie a string to the revolver and 
make it so that you can run your fist through the string so I may 
be sure you won't drop it.' I says ' No, I don't want- any string 
around the revolver.' He gave me six cartridges, saying. * These are 
extra long and don't belong to the revolver, but they are long and 
good, and after you have killed her you take these extra cartridges 
and put them in the revolver, take the extra ones out and put in these 
other ones that belong to the revolver and put the revolver under 
my pillow when you come back.' Then he says. ' When I get ready 
you come up to my flat and I will instruct you where to go and all 
about it' He left me for a little while and went away. I don't know 



448 HOMICIDE. 

how long he was out, but after awhile he came back and he says, 
' Put on your coat and come on.' ' Now,' he says, ' you go out on the 
other side of Hennepin Avenue and wait for me until I come out, 
and when you see me come out you follow down to the corner of 
Kenwood and Hennepin.' I went across to Hennepin Avenue and 
down pretty nearly two blocks and stood there watching until I saw 
him coming. Then I walked ahead down to the corner of Kenwood 
and Hennepin, when I turned around at a little pathway going across 
a vacant lot and saw him cut across there. He hawked and coughed, 
and that meant I should come that way with him. He went on prob- 
ably four rods further and I followed. After I got across the first 
street, Lyndale, I think, I followed him a block further. He crossed 
the street, and when I came to where he crossed I saw a horse and 
top-buggy, and he was standing there by it, talking with Miss Ging, 
who was in the buggy. He said to her, ' This man is one of the 
gang.' He says to me, ' Get in there.' I lost my cap in getting in 
and he picked it up for me and went around and whispered to her. 
Then he said to me, * You drive up to Hennepin and go around Henne- 
pin Boulevard, around to Lake Street and follow around the west side 
of Lake Calhoun and I will meet you. I will have a team, and when you 
meet the two horses >ou exchange with us.' He said to me and to 
her that we should keep our heads in pretty close so that we would 
not be noticed. The top of the buggy was up. I turned and drove 
as directed, leaving Hayward standing there. I kept going on the 
west side, and when as far as the ice-house she asked if Harry was 
coming; if he was out buying green goods. I said I did not know, 
and we kept going further on. She said, ' I was held up here once,' 
and I said, ' Did you lose anything? ' * No,' she said, ' we put 
the rings we had in our mouths,' and that is all the conversation we 
had until we reached the street railway. After that I had my revolver 
on the seat at my side and she asked what I had there. I told her 
what it was, and that Harry had said to me that it was the best 
thing to have out this way because we might be held up. As we were 
going on she kept looking for Harry, and every little while she put 
out her head and I kept thinking it over how I could do this. I 
thought of getting out and running off and leaving her, and leaving 
everything, and then I thought of my wife and that he would kill her 
sure, and that is why I stayed in the buggy. After that she kept 
looking around, and if I had wanted to I could have killed her ten 
times. At last she put out her head again and I raised my revolver 
and fired. I never looked where I shot, but it happened that I shot 
her just where he told me to shoot her, where he asked the doctor 
would kill the quickest. After I had shot her she threw herself back 
and sat right still. I kept going twenty-five or thirty yards further 
and was scared then. I took the robe oflf my knees and gave it to 
her and kept it shoved up against her, and when I had gone twenty- 
five or thirty yards more in that direction I turned around and drove 



HOMICIDE. 449 

back slowly, holding the robe up against her. Then I began work to 
get her out of the buggy. I stooped down, and moving her legs 
close together, I laid my hands so that she would not come against 
me. In falling out she struck on the front wheel, turned around and 
laid on her side, the wheel going over her body, and I drove on. 
That is the way it happened." 

Continuing his testimony, Blixt said: 

" After she was out of the buggy I drove back to Hennepin Avenue 
and on up to Lyndale, and then I got out of the buggy and let the 
horse go alone." Blixt returned to the Ozark Flats, stopping on the 
way to drink, as he said " two small snitz of beer because I didn't 
feel good." He reached the Ozark about ten o'clock. He went to 
Harry's bath-room and removed the cartridges from the revolver, 
exchanging them for other cartridges as directed previously by Hay- 
ward, and then placed the revolver under the pillow as he had been 
told to do. He threw into the furnace the cartridges he had taken 
from the revolver, and then went to bed. Some time after eleven 
o'clock that night, after he had retired, Harry came to his bed-room 
to know if Blixt was there. He came again during the early morning 
hours, between three and four o'clock, and called out loudly, " Blixt, 
are you asleep? " Blixt answered roughly, " No." Then Harry said, 
" I have been down-town, and she has been murdered for her money. 
It seems as though she had met with some men, fellows of hers, 
and that they murdered her and took my money, and my seven thou- 
sand dollars is gone. I don't expect I shall ever see a cent of it, and 
the people down-town say it is the most horrible and cold-blooded 
murder that ever was committed, and there is not a clue to the mur- 
derer anywhere to be found. I have been upstairs talking to the little 
girl trying to find out something, but she did not seem to know any- 
thing about it. I don't know what to do. I don't know whether I 
had better go down in the morning and notify the insurance com- 
pany or not." 

Mrs. Blixt was present and asked Hay ward a few ques- 
tions. Blixt said nothing. 

Harry T. Hayward was charged by the indictment on which 
he was tried with the crime of murder in the first degree, by 
aiding, abetting, inducing and procuring Carl A. Blixt to shoot 
Katherine Ging, thereby causing her death. The trial com- 
menced on January 21st, 1895, and continued uninterniptedly 
until March 8th. Although the State based its claim mainly 
upon the evidence of Blixt and of Adry Hayward, it supported 
that evidence with voluminous and overwhelming corrobora- 
tive proof, so that the story told by them remained practically 



450 HOMICIDE. 

unshaken. The motive for the murder, as appeared in evi- 
dence, was to recover the $10,000 insurance procured through 
Hayward's influence upon Miss Ging, and which had imme- 
diately afterward been assigned to him. The defense was 
masterly, and conducted by one of the most able of criminal 
lawyers; but the result was foreseen from the outset, and on 
the afternoon of March 8th, 1895, the jury brought in a verdict 
of guilty as charged in the indictment. On the nth of March 
he was sentenced to be hanged at a time to be fixed by the Gov- 
ernor of the State of Minnesota. This sentence was carried 
into effect on the nth day of December, 1895. 

On the night preceding his execution Hayward made a con- 
fession, or rather what he calls a '* full and final statement of 
my life, dwelling particularly upon the crime for v/hich I am 
to be executed." The statement was made to three personal 
friends, whom he authorized to publish, as being the whole 
truth in regard to the Ging murder. It is a rambling narrative 
and apparently truthful. He relates his early gambling ex- 
periences, and gives brief account of other murders committed 
by him. He tells the full story of burning the mill mentioned 
in Adry's evidence, having set the fire himself. He admitted 
that there was no money transaction between himself and Miss 
Ging, and that the $7,000 loan was purely visionary. The 
only money in the scheme was the $40 to $60 premiums paid 
on the insurance policies. He states that the evidence of both 
Blixt and Adry was substantially correct. Throughout the 
whole recital of his confession a mocking laugh played over 
his conscienceless face, and without a word or exhibition of 
regret, he disclosed the deep-laid and rooted depravity of his 
brief but demoniacal career. 

THE MONSTER HOLMES. 
Benjamin F. Pitezel, Loomis Avenue, Chicago, 111., occu- 
pation given as real estate and dealer in patents, made appli- 
cation to the Fidelity Mutual Life Association of Philadelphia 
for $10,000 insurance. He was described by Dr. Charles 
S. Taylor, the medical examiner, as a man of 5 feet 10 inches; 
weight 155 pounds; chest measurement 32-35; girth of abdo- 
men 32; hazel eyes; hair black; risk first class. 



HOMICIDE. 451 

A policy for $10,000, the amount applied for, was issued 
November 9th, 1893. The opplication was written by Mr. O. 
W. Fay, an agent of integrity and intelligence, who states 
that Pitezel invented a coal-bin, had desk room in the office 
in which H. H. Holmes also had desk room, and that he first 
became acquainted with Holmes in the ordinary course of 
business, and was subsequently introduced by Holmes to 
Pitezel. 

A payment became due August loth, 1894, and on August 2d 
of the same year Pitezel saw the cashier of the Chicago office 
and asked whether he could obtain an extension, stating that 
he had ordered several car-loads of lumber, and that he had 
to pay for the same, which made him short, and he would 
probably not be in a position to dispose of it before the pay- 
ment became due. The cashier informed him that he had no 
authority to grant extensions. On the day the payment be- 
came due, a telegraph money-order was received at the 
Chicago office of the Association. 

On September 5th, 1894, the newspapers gave an account 
of the finding of a body at 13 16 Callowhill Street, Philadel- 
phia. The coroner's verdict was that death had been caused 
'' from burns received from an explosion and inhalation of 
flame." The name of the deceased was given as B. F. 
Perry, who had for a short time been engaged in the patent- 
right business. About September 12th, 1894, President 
Fouse, of the Fidelity Association, received a communication 
from one Jephtha D. Howe, of St. Louis, attorney for Mrs. 
Carrie A. Pitezel, who claimed that Mrs. Pitezel had evidence 
that B. F. Perry, who came to his death at 1316 Callowhill 
Street, was her husband, B. F. Pitezel. The fact that Pitezel 
had done business for only a brief period in Philadelphia 
under an alias, and the fact that the surroundings of the room 
in which the body was found indicated that a crime had been 
committed, although not so considered at the time by the 
coroner's jury, led President Fouse to make an investigation. 

The coroner's physician described the body found as that 
of a light-complexioned person, aged between 38 and 40: 
weight 175 to 180 pounds; moustache, dark red, and no beard, 
etc. This description did not tally with the description of B. 



452 HOMICIDE. 

F. Pitezel as given by the examining physician, hence the 
cashier at the Chicago office was written to, to obtain a full 
description of B. F. Pitezel. As Pitezel was not then and had 
not been for some months a resident of Chicago, he was unsuc- 
cessful at first in finding any one who could give a description 
that would be of any value for the purpose of identification 
of the dead body. He appealed to the agent who wrote the 
application, Mr. O. W. Fay, who stated that the only person he 
knew who was capable of giving a minute description was 
H. H. Holmes, because the two, as he understood, had been 
associated together in business for some time, and Holmes 
was referred to as the owner of the big hotel on 63d Street, 
later known as " the Holmes Castle." The cashier upon in- 
quiry found that Holmes was not living at the Castle, but at 
Wilmette, and proceeded to call on him. He was met by a 
lady who called herself Mrs. Holmes, and who said that her 
husband was a traveling man, was not at home, and she 
did not know when he would return home. The cashier then 
disclosed his mission, and called the attention of Mrs. Holmes 
to a clipping from a Chicago paper, in which an account of the 
finding of the body was given, but it was written as though 
the body had been found in Chicago. Mrs. Holmes was quite 
sure that her husband, as she had often heard him speak of 
Pitezel, could give a description, asked for the clipping, and 
offered to forward it to him and request him to write to the 
cashier. A few days afterwards the cashier received a letter 
written from Columbus, Ohio, by alias H. H. Holmes, in 
which he acknowledged receipt of letter from his wife, also 
clipping, and said that he undoubtedly could identify the body, 
and that if the company would pay his expenses and compen- 
sate him for his time he would come to Chicago and identify the 
body. The following day he wrote another letter from Cin- 
cinnati, stating that he had come across a Philadelphia paper 
and discovered that the body supposed to be that of B. F. 
Pitezel was found in Philadelphia and not in Chicago, and that 
inasmuch as he had business in Philadelphia and was going 
there, he would call on the officers of the Association and 
render them any service he could. Both letters from alias 
H. H. Holmes were sent by the cashier of the Chicago office 



HOMICIDE. 453 

to President Fouse, who was therefore prepared to receive 
a call from Holmes, which he made about September 20th, 
1894. Holmes introduced himself, referred to the corre- 
spondence he had with the cashier of the Chicago office, and 
expressed his willingness to give whatever information he 
could concerning Pitezel. He was thereupon asked to give a 
full description of B. F. Pitezel, which he did. He was told 
that Mrs. Pitezel and her attorney were expected in a few days, 
and that they would probably have the body exhumed, which 
had been kept for over ten days in the morgue and was subse- 
quently buried in the Potter's Field, and was asked if he could 
arrange to be present for the purpose of aiding in the identi- 
fication of the body. His reply was that he could not well 
afford to lose the time, if there should be any delay, otherwise 
he would be willing to serve the Association. He was then 
told that he would be compensated for loss of time, and there 
probably would be -no delay. He left with the statement that 
he would call back the next day. On the morning of the 21st 
of September, 1894, Jephtha D. Howe called on President 
Fouse with an introduction from Superintendent of Police 
Captain Linden, who, on the strength of a recommendation 
brought from St. Louis, vouched for him. Attorney Howe, 
on behalf of Mrs. Pitezel, was asked to make a statement and 
give a description of Pitezel, which he did. Attorney Howe 
claimed that Mrs. Pitezel, on account of sickness, was unable 
to come, but that he had brought with him her daughter Alice, 
aged fourteen. About noon of the same day, he brought 
Alice to the office, who also made a statement describing her 
father. The three statements and descriptions, which had been 
made independently of one another, were tRen compared and 
found to correspond on all essential points. During the after- 
noon of that day, H. H. Holmes returned to the office of the 
Fidelity and was introduced to Lawyer Howe, of St. Louis, 
at the request of the latter, and they met as entire strangers. 
It was then agreed that the body buried as B. F. Perry should 
be exhumed Saturday, September 21st, 1894, and the following 
marks of identification were agreed upon for the purpose of 
identifying the body: 



454 HOMICIDE. 

1. Hair of head straight and black, with no tendency towards 
curling. 

2. Frontal bone of forehead recedes, with posterior coronal devel- 
opment. 

3. Ridge or abnormal development of nasal bone, being result of 
injury to nose. 

4. Reddish moustache of stiff, coarse hair, which he sometimes 
dyed. 

5. Upper and lower front teeth even and intact. Worn and stained 
with nicotine. Has had some of the back teeth extracted. 

6. Mole or wart, same color as skin, on the back of neck, within 
one inch from center of back, and about next to lowest cervical ver- 
tebra. The mole or wart is about the size of a pea. 

7. Blood bruise of one of the nails of his thumbs, which caused 
marked discoloration of the nail. 

8. Enlargement of the tibia below the knee of both legs. 

9. A cut on lower extremity of one of his feet by an axe, occa- 
sioned by one of the children accidentally dropping an axe. Exact 
location of incision is uncertain. 

The following marks of identification were found on the 
body bulled as that of B. F. Perry in grave No. 496 in the 
Potter's Field: 

1. Scar on left leg below the knee. 

2. Mole on back of neck in center of neck about where collar- 
button is on shirt. 

3. Right thumb-nail bruised and badly discolored. 

4. Hair black and straight. 

5. Moustache reddish, or sandy color. 

6. Cowlick on left side of forehead. (This has been mentioned in 
conversation, but was not given as an identification mark.) 

7. Head shaped as described in stipulation with the company, 

8. Nose rather angularly shaped, and bridge in middle of nose 
broken or badly bruised. 

The identification was satisfactory to the deputy coroner, 
and the following day the inquest was reopened, and on the 
testimony of H. H. Holmes, Alice Pitezel, and Jephtha D. 
Howe, a verdict was rendered that the man buried in grave 
No. 496 in the Potter's Field as B. F. Perry ^vas B. F. Pitezel. 
The coroner gave a permit to take up the body and to bury 
it as B. F. Pitezel. This established a prima facie claim, and 
the identification having been satisfactory to the officers of 
the Fidelity Association, the claim under policy on the life of 



HOMICIDE. 455 

B. F. Pitezel was approved and paid to Jephtha D. Howe, 
attorney-in-fact for Mrs. Carrie A. Pitezel. 

About one month after the insurance money was paid, 
Inspector Gary, of the Fidelity Association, who happened to 
be in St. Louis, ascertained that the notorious train robber, 
Marion Hedgepath, confined in the St. Louis jail, had knowl- 
edge of a conspiracy, and proceeded to interview him. He 
became convinced that there was much truth in the statement 
made by Hedgepath, because of facts referred to by him, of 
which he could have had no knowledge had he not been, as 
he claimed he was, a party to the conspiracy. He had been 
promised for his part the sum of $500, and the promise had 
not been kept. It was he, according to his statement or 
confession, who brought Lawyer Howe and alias H. H. 
Holmes together. Inspector Gary then proceeded to make 
an investigation, and found that alias H. H. Holmes had left 
for parts unknown, that Mrs. Pitezel and the children were 
not to be found, and also discovered that Holmes and Howe 
had sustained the relation of client and counsel before they 
met as entire strangers in Philadelphia. This convinced the 
officers of the Association of the existence of a conspiracy. 
It was then determined at any cost, because of the suspicion 
that the conspiracy involved the crime of murder, to appre- 
hend the conspirators. This proved to be a herculean task. 
Alias H. H. Holmes, who changed his name with every move 
he made, was nowhere to be found. The parents of Mrs. 
Pitezel lived at Galva, 111., but they could give no information 
concerning their daughter, who made a brief visit soon after 
the insurance money was paid. She had left Galva with the 
promise that she would in a few days communicate with her 
parents and let them know where she was staying, but they 
had heard nothing. Innumerable clues were followed up in 
different sections of the country without result. President 
Fouse at the outset detailed four men, who worked dilig'ently, 
and who finally discovered a clue that alias Holmes, under 
the name of Howell, had been in Canada. The trail was 
taken up at Prescott, Canada, and at Burlington, Vt., and on 
November 5th, 1894, Holmes was overtaken and shadowed 
by one of the Fidelity's inspectors, aided by two Pinkerton 



456 HOMICIDE. 

operatives. The evidence was not in shape to warrant an 
arrest. The chase through the White iMountains, Holmes 
having discovered that he was under shadow, ^\^s exciting and 
desperate. It was ascertained that his purpose was to leave 
the countr}^ Arriving in Boston, November 14th, he stopped 
at the Adams Hotel under the name of H. M. Howell and 
wife, Denver. As the evidence was still incomplete, and inas- 
much as the authorities in Texas were looking for Holmes, 
President Fouse telegraphed to the sheriff at Fort Worth and 
arranged to have Holmes arrested on the charge of horse- 
stealing, so as to detain him and prevent his leaving the 
country. When Holmes was arrested in Boston, he noticed 
the presence of Air. O. La Forrest Perry, representing the 
Fidelity Association, and at once surmised that the charge of 
horse-stealing was a mere pretext, and that he \\'as wanted by 
the insurance company, whose inspectors and detectives had 
been shadowing him. For the evident purpose of obscuring 
and hiding the greater crime, he frankly confessed the con- 
spiracy, and stated in substance that he, together with Jephtha 
D. Howe, B. F. Pitezel, and Marion D. Hedgepath, had agreed 
to swindle the Fidelity Association by pretending that B. F. 
Pitezel had met his death by accident, but that in fact he was 
alive, and that the body found and claimed to be that of B, 
F. Pitezel was not his body, that it was a " stiff " procured from 
a physician in New York, and that Airs. Pitezel had guilty 
knowledge of the fraud, and that she, together with two of the 
children, had accompanied him as far as Burlington, Vt, 
where they were stopping under the name of Adams, and that 
the other three children were with the father, B. F. Pitezel, 
whom he claimed to have met in Cincinnati soon after the 
money was paid. Holmes was subjected to a rigid cross- 
examination at various times and by different persons. Mrs. 
Pitezel was decoyed to Boston and likewise arrested, and state- 
ments were obtained from her. Through the evidence col- 
lected and statements made by the conspirators, sufficient 
facts were obtained to warrant placing the matter before the 
Grand Jury of Philadelphia County, which resulted in Herman 
Webster Mudgett alias H. H. Holmes, Jephtha D. Howe, Mrs. 
Carrie A. Pitezel and Alarion D. Hedgepath, being indicted 



HOMICIDE. 457 

for conspiracy to defraud the Fidelity Association. Holmes 
was first tried, March 27th, 1895, on the charge of conspiracy, 
and before the conclusion of the trial he withdrew the answer 
of not guilty and pleaded guilty. During all this time he con- 
tinued to claim that Pitezel was alive, and that the three chil- 
dren, Howard, Alice and Nellie, were with the father. No 
one believed this, and the officers of the Fidelity Association 
therefore continued to prosecute the investigation, with the 
result that they became convinced that not only B. F. Pitezel 
had been murdered by Holmes in the city of Philadelphia, but 
that he had subsequently, for the purpose of destroying evi- 
dence, murdered the three children, one of whom, Alice, knew 
that the body in the Potter's Field was no unknown " stiff," 
but was that of her father, she having taken part in the identifi- 
cation. 

A search was instituted for the children, dead or alive. The 
remains of the two daughters, Nellie and Alice, after a long 
and tedious search, were found in July, 1895, in a cottage on 
St. Vincent Street, Toronto, which Holmes had rented for (as 
he claimed) his sister Mrs. Adams, in the previous October. 
The girls had been buried in the cellar. Holmes had bor- 
rowed a spade from a neighbor, was seen in the cottage in 
company with the children, but after a few days the cottage 
was abandoned, and the owner again took possession. The 
children had been stripped of their clothing, some of which 
was found in the chimney, not wholly destroyed, and was iden- 
tified by Mrs. Pitezel. Portions of the remains of Howard 
Pitezel, a lad twelve years old, were found in a house in 
Irvington, a suburb of Indianapolis. An effort had been made 
to cremate the boy, but the skeleton, for the most part, was 
intact. The portion of remains, particles of clothing, together 
with a portion of trunk found, enabled Mrs. Pitezel to identify 
the remains as those of her son, Howard Pitezel. The house 
in Irvington was rented by Holmes. The key to it was in 
his possession, and taken from him after his arrest in Phila- 
delphia. After the discovery of the remains of the children, 
which materially strengthened the circumstantial evidence, 
Holmes was indicted for murder. The trial commeni^ed 
October 28th, 1895, ^^^^ resulted in his conviction November 



458 HOMICIDE. 

2d, 1895. A motion was made for a new trial November 13th, 
1895, ^o^ the following reasons: 

" I. That the verdict is against the evidence. 

" 2. That the verdict is against the law. 

" 3. The verdict is against the weight of the evidence. 

NEW EVIDENCE. 

" 4. On account of new matter discovered since the trial. 

" 5. For the reason that the district attorney, in his opening speech, 
made statements which were not proven, and which related to other 
crimes which could not be part of the evidence, and they were of 
such a terrible nature that their effect on the jury was, of necessity, 
so adverse to the defendant that it was impossible for them to decide 
purely upon the evidence in this case. 

" 6. The court erred in not allowing affidavits and an exception to 
statements in the district attorney's opening speech. 

" 7. For the reason that the district attorney, in his closing speech, 
mentioned the death of the children and the finding of their dead 
bodies in the morgue. 

" 8. The court erred in allowing Mrs. Pitezel to testify or state 
what her husband had told her. 

" 9. The court erred in not allowing Mrs. Pitezel to testify of her 
own knowledge to the doings and troubles of her husband in Terre 
Haute, Indiana. 

" 10. The court erred in allowing the testimony of Mrs. Pitezel 
relating to the bottle of nitro-glycerine. 

RULINGS QUESTIONED. 

" II. The court erred in admitting the following evidence under 
exception: (a) in ruling that the defendant's wife was a competent 
witness; (b) in allowing evidence of the whereabouts of the children 
and finding of their bodies in Toronto; (c) in permitting jurors to 
enter the box who had acknowledged that they - had formed or 
expressed an opinion regarding the guilt or innocence of the de- 
fendant. 

" 12. The court erred in charging the jury, by giving undue prom- 
inence to the evidence favorable to the commonwealth and not suf- 
ficient prominence to the evidence favorable to the prisoner. 

"13. The court erred in charging the jury as follows: 'You will 
notice by the testimony which was read to you that the doctors who 
examined him say his death was caused by chloroform poisoning, 
and that it could not have been self-administered. Now, if it was 
not self-administered, who was it that administered the poison to him, 
who poisoned him and took his life? ' 

" 14. The court erred in charging the jury as follows: 'If you are 
not fairly satisfied with the evidence of his guilt, he is entitled to the 
benefit of the doubt.' 



HOMICIDE. 459 

" 15. The court erred in not affirming points numbers 3 and 6 sub- 
mitted by the defendant." 

Argument for new trial was had November i8th, 1895, 
during which one of defendant's counsel, W. A. Shoemaker, 
was charged with subornation of perjury. The fourth reason 
assigned for a new trial was on account of new matter dis- 
covered since the trial. The new matter consisted of an affi- 
davit of a supposed Blanche A. Hannigan, which had been 
prepared by Mr. Shoemaker, and placed in the hands of a 
detective to find some one who was willing to swear to it. The 
detective, while apparently doing the bidding of counsel, made 
a confidant of Detective Frank Geyer, who conferred with the 
district attorney, who advised that a woman be furnished, 
who, for a consideration, would make the affidavit. A police 
matron, under an assumed name, was sent to the office of 
Lawyer Shoemaker, and expressed her willingness, for the 
sum of $20, to make the affidavit, which she stated to the 
attorney she had not read, and was not familiar with its con- 
tents. He had her swear to it, and paid her the money, which 
she accepted, marked, and produced in court. Lawyer Shoe- 
maker was thereupon indicted for subornation, and disbar- 
ment proceedings followed. 

The decision on motion for a new trial of Holmes, which 
was declined, was rendered by Judge Arnold, and concurred 
in by Judges Thayer and Wilson. An appeal on the law of the 
case to the Supreme Court was sued out December 19th, 1895, 
and on the same day was served on the clerk of the lower court. 
The writ was returnable on the first Monday of January, 1896; 
but application for postponement was made by defendant's 
counsel. A postponement was granted to the first Monday 
of February for the argument. 

Dr. Herman W. Mudgett, the arch-conspirator and multi- 
murderer, was born in Oilman ton, N. H., in the year 1861. 
He was one year a student in the University of Vermont at 
Burlington, and then took a course of medicine at Ann Arbor, 
Mich. He engaged in the practice of his profession soon 
after his graduation in June, 1884, in New York State. In his 
own language, he received plenty of gratitude but little 



460 HOMICIDE. 

money, and when starvation was staring him in the face he 
conceived the idea of swindling insurance companies. Shortly 
before his trial he wrote a book, remarkable for what it does 
not say rather than for what it tells, on the title-page of which 
he refers to "twenty-two tragic deaths and disappearances in 
which he is said to be imphcated." Those who have had 
charge of the prosecution and have become familiar with his 
history and dark deeds, seem to think that the number twenty- 
two does not overstate the " tragic deaths and disappearances." 
To what extent Holmes has profited by swindling insurance 
companies is unknown to any one except himself, but he has 
intimated repeatedly that the Pitezel case is not the first, but 
simply the first that was discovered. 

Mrs. Carrie A. Pitezel, the widow of Benjamin F. Pitezel, 
was indicted for conspiracy, incarcerated in Moyamensing 
Prison, in the city of Philadelphia, and after a timie released. 
The officers of the Fidelity Association, and the district attor- 
ney, became convinced that she had guilty knowledge of the 
conspiracy, but not of the crime of murder, that she did not 
profit by it, and had been unduly influenced by Holmes. She 
confessed that soon after the insurance policy was received, her 
husband intimated to her that he might for a time disappear, 
and if he did, not to be alarmed, that he would be all right. 
Holmes knew of this statement which Pitezel had made to his 
wife, and took advantage of it to get her to do his bidding 
in order to collect the insurance money. 

Jephtha D. Howe, the St. Louis attorney-at-law under in- 
dictment for conspiracy with Holmes and Hedgepath, has not 
yet been tried. It is charged that instead of having been an 
entire stranger to Holmes, as claimed when they met in the 
office of the Fidelity Mutual Life Association, and were intro- 
duced to one another by the president, they had actually 
• known one another for some time before ; that they had sus- 
tained the relation of client and counsel; that Lawyer Howe 
knew Holmes by various aliases; that in going to Philadelphia 
they traveled part of the way together in the same car, but at 
Washington Lawyer Howe stopped over one train to give 
Holmes an opportunity to call at the office of the insurance 
company and get *' the lay of the land"; that the evening 



HOMICIDE. 461 

preceding the visit of Lawyer Howe to the insurance office 
he met Holmes at the residence of Mrs. Alcorn on North 
Eleventh Street to map out a line of action. Notwithstanding 
such acquaintance and meeting, when he was asked by Pres- 
ident Fouse the following day whether he was acquainted 
with a man from Chicago by the name of Holmes, a friend of 
Pitezel, he answered he was not, and accepted an introduction. 
On the 4th of March, 1896, the case was reviewed by the 
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, and a decision was promptly 
handed down affirming the judgment of the lower court The 
text of the decision as read by Justice Williams is as follows: 

This is a voluminous record. An examination of it shows that the 
trial of the defendant furnished some unlooked-for situations and dra- 
matic incidents, but no one of them seems to have been the result 
of caything irregular or sensational in the manner or rulings of the 
learned trial Judge. On the other hand, it is apparent that they were 
due to the extraordinary character of the circumstances with which the 
defendant had surrounded himself, and to his interference with the 
usual methods of trial. Indeed the assignments of error, although 
thirteen in number, have been intended to raise no questions except 
such as may be characterized as general questions of law, and they 
have been presented in this court and discussed in the oral argument 
in a thoroughly lawyer-like manner, and with decided ability. We 
proceed to consider them in their order. 

The first, second, third and fourth assignments relate to the admis- 
sibility of the testimony of Georgianna Yoke, who was called as a 
witness by the Commonwealth and whom the defendant alleged to be 
his lawful wife. At the time this witness was called there was evidence 
before the court showing that the defendant had an establishment of 
some sort at Willamett, in the State of Illinois, which was known, 
at least to some of his acquaintances, as his home, where as H. H. 
Holmes, he lived with a woman who was understood to be his wife. 

The evidence further showed that a letter which had been left at 
this establishment with this woman in his absence, by the witness 
Cass, had been promptly replied to by H. H. Holmes, and that in 
the answer he referred to this woman as his wife, saying " I am in 
receipt of a letter from my wife, stating that you called on her in 
regard to Mr. Pitezel. She c.lso enclosed me clipping from paper, 
which I presume you gave her." All this evidence, tending to show 
that the prisoner was a married man, and that his wife lived in Illinois, 
and was known as Mrs. Holmes, was before the court when Georgi- 
anna Yoke was called. There was nothing in the name of the witness, 
and there was nothing in her testimony when she was first on the 
stand, to suggest that she was the wife of the prisoner, or to throw 



462 HOMICIDE. 

any doubt upon his being, as he appeared to be at that stage of the 
evidence, the husband of the woman of whom he had written as his 
wife. 

An objection to her competency, taken when she was first called and 
examined, would have had nothing on which to rest. At a late stage 
of the trial she was recalled by the defendant and examined upon 
this subject. She then stated that she had been married to the prisoner 
by a clergyman in the city of Denver in January, 1894. That his name 
was then Howard, and that she was married to him by that name. 
She stated further that during much of the time, between January and 
the following November, she had lived with him as his wife, supposing 
that she occupied that position towards him, but that she learned 
before his arrest that he had been married some time previously to a 
woman living in Gilmanton, N. H., whom she understood to be still 
living. She had heard still earlier of the woman at Willamett, but 
did not understand that Howard had been lawfully niarried to her. 
She had talked with him about the woman at Gilmanton while they 
were at Boston not long before his arrest. His sister had told her 
that the prisoner had accounted for having married her while his 
wife was living at Gilmanton by telling his father's family that he had 
been seriously injured in a railroad wreck; that she (Miss Yoke) had 
nursed him and had been instrumental in saving his mind, but had 
married him before he knew where he was or what he was doing. 
This story she told the prisoner. He did not deny or explain the 
story, but said in his own defense that when he married her he had 
been told that the woman at Gilmanton was dead. 

The witness was apparently satisfied that her marriage was not 
valid, and she had resumed the use of her maiden name. As she was 
competent, prima facie, when called and examined, the burden of 
showing her incompetency was on the prisoner, who alleged it. The 
testimony of Miss Yoke, to which we have just referred, was given 
for that purpose, and it was all the evidence upon that subject. The 
fair effect of it was to show that no legal marriage had taken place; 
that Miss Yoke had been cruelly deceived, and that the legal wife of 
the prisoner lived at Gilmanton, N. H. Let us grant that if the 
defendant had been on trial for bigamy the testimony of Miss Yoke 
might not have been suflEiciently definite as to the fact of the first 
marriage to justify a conviction of the defendant, yet we must remem- 
ber that so far as the competency of the witness was concerned, the 
burden of proof was not on the Commonwealth. 

She was apparently competent. The burden of establishing her 
incompetency by proof of a lawful marriage between himself and 
her was on him who alleged it. The learned Judge would have been 
justified in doing what the prisoner's counsel complain that he did 
not do, viz., treat this question of competency as a question of law, 
and overrule the objection to her testimony at once. What he did 
was more favorable to the prisoner than he had a right to ask. He 



HOMICIDE. 463 

submitted the question of the legality of the marriage to the jury, 
instructing them that if they found it to be valid they should reject 
the testimony of the witness altogether. We do not see how the 
prisoner can expect successfully to complain of a ruling that gave 
him one more chance for a favorable decision upon the question of 
the competency of the witness than he had a right to ask. 

The fifth and sixth assignments are in effect but a different mode 
of raising the question we have just considered. They complain of 
the submission of the testimony of Miss Yoke to the jury. She had 
been examined very fully as to the movements of the prisoner on 
that Sunday on which he had stated to Mr. Linden, Superintendent of 
Police, that he saw and arranged the dead body of Pitezel in the 
Callowhill Street house. This evidence the learned Judge referred to 
and submitted to the jury. It is not suggested that her evidence is 
not fairly repeated, nor that any statement is attributed by the Court 
to her that she did not make. The burden of the assignment of error 
must therefore be that the testimony was treated by the learned Judge 
as competent and as properly before the jury. This was not an error 
for the reason given when treating of the question of the competency 
of the witness, and we do not see that it was inconsistent with the 
action of the learned Judge in submitting that question to the jury, 
since it was necessary, at least provisionally, to call their attention 
to the effect of the testimony and the questions to which it related. 
These assignments are, therefore, overruled. 

The thirteenth assignment should be considered in this connection, 
as it is directed against the action of the Court in submitting to the 
jury the question of the existence of a legal marriage between the 
prisoner and Miss Yoke at the time she was called as a witness, and 
the direction to them to consider or to exclude from their considera- 
tion her testimony as they might find upon that question. We have 
already said that, while the submission of the question might not 
have been necessary, we cannot see that it did the prisoner any harm. 
The verdict undoubtedly shows that the jury decided this question 
against the prisoner. But so, we think, the learned Judge should 
have done if he had undertaken to pronounce upon the effect of Miss 
Yoke's testimony in regard to the legality of her marriage to the 
prisoner. The prisoner cannot complain that she should be taken 
at his word upon this question, and the story told by him to his father's 
family, which Miss Yoke afterwards called to his attention, and his 
excuse made to her for marrying her while he had a wife living at 
Gilmanton, were enough to discredit the alleged marriage. We do 
not see how the jury or the Court could have done otherwise than 
to say that the prisoner had not successfully shown the witness to be 
incompetent, and whether the Court had disposed of the question in 
the first instance by an instruction, or allowed the jury to dispose 
of it without any controlling direction upon the subject, the prisoner 
had no ground for complaint. 



464 HOMICIDK 

The twelfth assignment is to the refusal of the learned Judge to 
allow an exception to the opening address of the district attorney. 
As we understand the situation the objection to the opening address 
was not made at the time of its delivery, but several days later, near 
the close of the trial. The district attorney had in his opening stated 
the case of the Commonwealth. He had detailed in their order the 
incidents connecting the prisoner with Pitezel, with the procurement 
of the policy of insurance on his life, with his subsequent death, the 
identification of the body, the absorption of the insurance money by 
the prisoner, and his subsequent movements. He called attention to 
the part taken by Alice in the identification of her father's body and 
to the fact that she was kept thereafter from a meeting with her 
mother, whom the prisoner had led to believe that her husband was 
still alive. 

He then spoke of the remarkable journeys upon which Alice and 
her brother and sister were moved in one group, Mrs. Pitezel and 
her other children in another, and Georgianna Yoke by herself or in 
company with the prisoner in a third. He told how they went from 
place to place near to each other, were housed at the same time in the 
same city, but always without meeting, until one by one the three 
members of the group disappeared. He then spoke of the finding of 
their remains and of the powerful array of circumstances connecting 
the prisoner with their death and the disposition of their bodies. The 
theory of the Commonwealth was that the motive of the killing of 
Pitezel was to secure the insurance money, and the killing of Alice 
and the two children who were with him grew out of his desire to 
prevent Mrs. Pitezel from knowing of the death of her husband and 
of her subsequent right to the insurance money. The several homi- 
cides were thus alleged to be connected, to have common motive, and 
to form parts of one general plan. 

In opening the case it was natural for the district attorney to state, 
indeed it was his duty towards the prisoner to state fully what he 
intended to offer for the consideration of the jury bearing upon his 
guilt. This he did, and so far as we are advised, without objection 
from the court or the prisoner. The trial proceeded upon the lines 
indicated upon the opening, until the subject of the disappearance and 
murder of the children was reached. An objection was then inter- 
posed by the prisoner's counsel on the ground that the evidence offered 
was intended to show the commission of an independent crime not 
charged in the indictment. After some consideration the objection 
was sustained by the learned Judge and the evidence excluded. Then, 
as we understand the course of the trial, and not until then, the 
application was made for leave to except to so much of the opening 
address of the district attorney as related to the excluded evidence. 
The learned Judge well said in answer to this request that there was 
no method by which an exception could be sealed by the court to the 
statements in the address of an attorney days after they had been made; 



HOMICIDE. 465 

and that if any statement made by the district attorney had been 
deemed objectionable, the attention of the court should have been 
called to it at the time when it was made and when its correction was 
possible. To this we are disposed to add another consideration, viz., 
That such a practice would require the trial judge to anticipate the 
course of the trial and decide upon the admissibility of evidence in 
advance of its being offered. 

We have no doubt of the power, nor in a proper case of the duty, 
of the court to supervise the addresses of counsel so far as may be 
necessary to protect prisoners or parties litigant from injurious mis- 
representations and unfair attack, and the jury from being misled. 
When this power should be exercised must be left to the sound dis- 
cretion of the Judge, and he should not hesitate to act when the fair 
administration of justice requires him to do so. 

But there was nothing in the address of the district attorney in 
the opening of the case of the Commonwealth that either the defend- 
ant's counsel or the Court seemed at the time to think required the 
exercise of this discretionary power. The subsequent action of the 
Court in rejecting a part of the case of the Commonwealth did not 
have a retrospective effect upon the opening address. It is probable 
that the learned Judge entertained some doubt about the admissibility 
of this evidence, and gave, as he should always do, the benefit of his 
doubt to the prisoner. But if he had admitted it we are not prepared 
to say that it would have been in error. Assuming the correctness of 
the theory of the Commonwealth, the evidence was admissible under 
the authority of a line of cases, among which are Turner vs. Common- 
wealth, 86 Pa., 54; Kramer vs. Commonwealth, 87 Pa., 299; Com- 
monwealth vs. Goerson, 99 Pa., 398; and Commonwealth vs. Bell, 166 
Pa., 405. But the decision of this question is not necessarily involved. 
It is enough for the purposes of this case to dispose of the question 
raised by the assignment, and hold that there was no error in refusing 
the request for an exception to the address of the district attorney 
made several days after the address had been completed. 

The next question, following the natural order of assignment, is 
that raised by the eighth. It relates to the admission of the story 
told by Mrs. Pitezel about the manner in which she saw and recog- 
nized the remains of three of her children within a few weeks after 
the death of her husband. This was part of the general story of her 
search after her husband, whom she supposed to be still alive, and 
the three children who were kept just a little way ahead of her until. 
one by one, they had disappeared. The search was made under the 
control and direction of the prisoner. She followed on where he 
promised her husband would come, and her children would meet her. 

During all this time he knew her husband was sleeping in the 
potter's field. He knew that first the boy and then Alice and her 
sister had gone out of sight while under his general care, and their 
bodies had been mutilated or concealed. She saw the children or 



466 HOMICIDE. 

their remains, at last. When and how she saw them she was allowed 
to state, and to that extent, at least, it was competent for her to 
speak of her children regardless of the question raised by the assign- 
ment of error last considered. The whole story of Mrs. Pitezel has 
a unity of character; and its incidents are so affected by the prisoner's 
acts and declarations in regard to her husband and his whereabouts, 
that we do not see any reason for rejecting as irrelevant any portion 
of it. We think also that it had a direct bearing upon the question 
of motive. At least it was for the jury to say from it whether the 
persistent concealment of Pitezel's death from his wife and his repre- 
sentations to her that the insurance money had been obtained by 
fraud, were not induced by his desire to escape litigation over the 
money and to avoid the suspicion of murder being started against 
him in her mind. 

The ninth assignment is directed towards a statement made by the 
learned Judge in his charge to the jury. Speaking of the death of 
Pitezel, he said: " You will notice by the testimony which was read 
to you that the doctors who examined him say his death was caused 
by chloroform poisoning, and that it could not have been self-adminis- 
tered." This, it is alleged, was wholly unwarranted by the evi- 
dence. As to the first part of this statement, there could be no com- 
plaint, for the fact that the deceased came to his death by chloroform 
poisoning was practically conceded by the prisoner. The contest was 
over the question whether the poison from which he died was self- 
administered, and his death due to suicide, or was feloniously adminis- 
tered by the prisoner, and his death due to murder. 

In the interview which was testified to by R. J. Linden, Superinten- 
dent of Police, the prisoner gave his own account of Pitezel's death. 
He found him, as he alleged, on the floor of the third-story room in 
the Callowhill Street house, dead. He said he was led to the third 
floor by a note left for him on the table in the front room on the 
first floor, directing him to search for a letter in a bottle in a closet 
opening ofif the same room. In the bottle, he says, he found a long 
letter telling of the purpose of the writer to commit suicide, and that 
his body would be found on the third floor. Going to that floor, he 
alleged, he found Pitezel dead. A large bottle with the chloroform 
stood near by, and leading from it to the dead man's mouth was 
a tube with a quill inserted in it so as to reduce the aperture for the 
flow of fluid. He says he felt that the appearance of suicide should 
be removed or a defense might be made to the policy on that ground. 
To do this he dragged the body down to the second floor, broke the 
bottle, scattered some inflammable liquid over the face and beard of 
the dead man and set it on fire to give to the body and the apart- 
ment the appearance of an explosion and the happening of death by 
accident. The theory of the defense included, therefore, the idea that 
Pitezel's death was due to chloroform poisoning, and the objection 
must relate, therefore, only to the statement that the doctors had 



HOMICIDE. . 467 

testified that the poison could not have been self-administered. The 
post-mortem examination had disclosed the presence of an ounce 
and a half of chloroform in the stomach at that time. How did it 
get there? As the story of the prisoner indicated, by a slow process 
of self-administration by means of the tube, or in some other manner? 

Upon this subject medical experts were called. They explained the 
effects of the drug upon the nerves and the brain and upon the lining 
of a living stomach. They gave two reasons why the chloroform 
could not have been self-administered in the manner alleged by the 
prisoner. In the first, the intoxicating quality of the drug would cause 
such semi-conscious or purely involuntary motions of the muscles and 
changes in the head and body as would break the connection between 
the bottle and the mouth by means of the alleged tube. In the next 
place, the chloroform had not affected the lining of the stomach; in 
other words, it had been introduced into the stomach after death. 
This testimony fully justified the statement of the learned Judge now 
complained of, and the assignment of error is overruled. 

The eleventh assignment alleges error in the answer to a point sub- 
mitted on behalf of the prisoner. The instruction asked by the point 
was somewhat involved. It was in substance a request for an instruc- 
tion that if the jury should believe the deceased died from chloroform 
poisoning, and that it was possible for him to have administered it to 
himself, and that this theory was as consistent with the facts in the 
case as that it was administered with criminal intent by the prisoner, 
then the verdict should be not guilty. This was another way of 
saying that if the theory suicide was as consistent with the facts 
as the theory of murder, then the prisoner should be acquitted, and 
it might have been affirmed without more. The answer, though not 
categorical, was in effect an affirmance. It was, " If you believe he, 
the deceased, did it himself, why of course the prisoner is not guilty." 
Then to this is added the general instruction that the burden of 
proving the guilt of the prisoner beyond a reasonable doubt remains 
upon the Commonwealth from the beginning to the end of the trial. 
If, therefore, the jury adopted the theory of suicide, or if, being unable 
to adopt it, they were yet unable to accept beyond a reasonable doubt 
the theory of murder, in either event they were told the verdict should 
be not guilty. This fully guarded the rights of the prisoner, even if 
it be conceded that categorical affirmance of the point would have 
been in better form. 

This brings us naturally to the tenth assignment of error, which 
derfies the clearness and adequacy of the exposition by the learned 
Judge of the doctrine of the reasonable doubt. The passage from the 
charge embodied in the assignment of error Is the least important 
part of the instruction given to the jury upon this subject, and does 
not fairly represent the learned Judge. He said in immediate con- 
nection with the passage complained of, " In all criminal cases, gentle- 
men, it is essential that the defendant shall be convicted by evidence 



468 HOMICIDE. 

which persuades the jury of the guilt of the prisoner beyond a reason- 
able doubt. By a reasonable doubt I do not mean an obstinacy or 
a resolution not to consider the testimony of the witnesses carefully. 
But it is that condition of the mind in which hesitancy arises after 
having given the evidence a fair consideration and you find your- 
selves unable to come to a conclusion as to the guilt of the prisoner." 
This was a full and adequate presentation of the subject. Take the 
passage embodied in the assignment in connection with that we have 
just given, and they stand in immediate connection in the charge, and 
it is apparent that the prisoner has no just ground of complaint be- 
cause the doctrine of the reasonable doubt was not fully stated and 
brought into sufficient prominence. 

The remaining assignment is to the whole charge, which, it is 
insisted, was wanting in clearness, was not impartial, but was calcu- 
lated to prejudice the minds of the jurors against the prisoner by 
giving undue prominence to such circumstances and considerations 
as were hurtful to him. It must be borne in mind that the defendant 
called no witnesses. The evidence before the Court and jury was 
only that of the Commonwealth, which had been gathered together 
for the purpose of clearing up the mystery surrounding the death of 
Pitezel and fixing the responsibility for it upon the prisoner. His 
real reliance was upon the reasonable doubt. The web of circum- 
stantial evidence that had been woven about him consisted of many 
threads, but the web taken as a whole was strong. It was impossible 
for the learned trial Judge to present the case to the jury in an 
intelligent manner without the strength of the circumstantial evidence 
being felt. This was not due to the rhetoric of the learned Judge, for 
he indulged in none. It was due to the convincing character of the 
facts and circumstances themselves, and to the completeness with 
which an adroitly arranged and badly executed scheme had been 
unraveled by the Commonwealth and its details laid before the Court 
and jury. 

We have examined this charge as a whole carefully and with a 
view to the question raised by this, assignment, and we cannot agree 
that it is inadequate, or that it is wanting in fairness of spirit. The 
evidence was reviewed, for the benefit of the jury, with reference to 
its bearing upon the great questions submitted to them for final deter- 
mination. 

These were stated in their proper order. First, was the body that 
was found in the Callowhill Street house the body of B. F. Pitezel? 
This seemed to be quite clear of any difficulty. Second, if the body 
was that of Pitezel, did his death result from chloroform poisoning? 
This was asserted as a fact by the medical witnesses and was assumed 
by the prisoner in his statement to Superintendent Linden. Third, if 
Pitezel died from chloroform poisoning, was the poison self-adminis- 
tered with suicidal intent or was it feloniously administered by the 
prisoner? This was the only real point of controversy. Finally, was 



HOMICIDE, 469 

there upon the whole case a reasonable doubt of the prisoner's guilt 
of the murder charged in the indictment? This review was not elabo- 
rate, but it was adequate. It presented the questions of fact clearly, 
and laid down the legal rules by which the jury should be guided in 
investigating and determining them. We are satisfied that this assign- 
ment is without merit and that it should be overruled. 

The defendant had a fair trial and that is all he had a right to 
demand. At one stage of the trial he was placed, perhaps, at a dis- 
advantage for a short time by his own conduct in dismissing his counsel 
and assuming the responsibility of conducting his own defense; but 
the Court was in no sense responsible for this. The prisoner and his 
counsel were, and the learned Judge did all that could reasonably be 
done to protect him from himself, as well as to secure to him a fair 
trial upon evidence restricted to circumstances, of the admissibility of 
which there was no reasonable doubt. In no respect has any just 
grt)und of complaint been made to appear, and the judgment must be 
affirmed. 

It may be well before concluding this case to say that the object 
of a trial before a jury is to ascertain with as much certainty as can 
be attained in a human tribunal the guilt or innocence of one charged 
with crime. When, as the result of such a trial, a verdict has been 
rendered against the prisoner, it ought not to be set aside by the 
trial Judge or by proceedings in a court of error, unless in some 
essential particular the trial has been erroneous. No merely technical 
or formal objection not affecting the result should be listened to. It 
is neither for the credit of the courts, nor for the interests of society, 
nor does it tend towards the repression of mob violence, or the pre- 
servation of good order, that the course of justice should be blocked 
or turned aside by technical objections which, however valuable they 
may have once been, are now, and long have been, empty shells; or by 
verbal distinctions that in this age mark no real differences. The 
prisoner has been found guilty of murder in the first degree, by a 
jury, after a protracted and fair trial. No substantial error in that 
trial has been pointed out. The evidence fully sustains the verdict and 
we are not disposed to disturb it. All the assignments of error are 
overruled and the judgment appealed from is affirmed. 

A DRAMATIC CALIFORNIA INCIDENT. 

The general agent of a life-insurance cprnpany walked into 
the office of the Coast Reviczv, in San Francisco, one day, and, 
accepting the profifered easy-chair of the editor, resigned him- 
self to the consolation of a fragrant weed. Always genial, 
he was in a most agreeably talkative mood, and was gradually 
led into some of the interesting reminiscences of a busy life. 
A surprising experience of years before \\nas fresh in his mind, 



470 HOMICIDE. 

recalled while ransacking old papers. The story dated back 
to 1867, and he related it as follows: 

One day a fine-looking, full-bearded man entered my of- 
fice and quietly asked for a policy of $5,000 on his life. Any 
doubt as to the sanity of a man who without solicitation 
w^ould apply for life insurance, was speedily dispelled by two 
or three questions. While not familiar with the " plans " of 
life insurance, nor with rates, he had a clear idea of what he 
wanted, and said it Avas enough for him to know that my com- 
pany was a legitimate enterprise, with millions to back up its 
contracts of insurance. I speedily filled his application for a 
twenty-year endowment policy in the sum of $5,000, payable, 
in the event of death, to his affianced bride or wife, as the case 
might be. The first year's premium was paid and the appli- 
cant was handed an interim binding receipt, awaiting the 
acceptance or rejection of the application by the comipany. 
Placing the receipt in his pocket, the gentleman, in a word 
or two casually dropped, displayed a confidential mood which 
I thought well to encourage. He was an ex-captain of the 
Union army, and was then in receipt of a fair income from 
some source which I have forgotten. He had become enam- 
ored of " a handsome and amiable young lady " — a man's 
sweetheart is always so, is she not? — met at the hotel where 
they both were boarding, if my memory serves me. He 
designed this policy as a wedding gift for his bride, though 
the wedding w^as not to take place for tvvo or three months at 
least. 

I bowed my visitor out, with little thought of the sequel of 
our pleasant interview. I never again saw him alive. 

The application was duly accepted and the policy was for- 
warded to me. It was placed in tlie office safe, awaiting the 
reappearance of the ex-captain, who never came. Two months 
later the morning papers contained the shocking intelligence 

that Captain had been killed by a fall from an upper 

window of a building standing where the Grand Hotel now is. 
The dead man was my strange visitor. He had walked out 
of the window while asleep, it was said, and did not recover 
consciousness during the few minutes of life remaining to 
him. The death of a man so recently insured by me was 



HOMICIDE. 471 

Startling. The $5,000 loss to my company on a policy on 
which only one premium had been paid was unfortunate, but 
I was saddened also by a real sympathy with the manly captain 
and his bereaved bride. 

As a matter of formal duty, and wholly without suspicion 
of the discovery in reserve, I immediately visited the scene of 
the accident. The body of the captain lay on a lounge in an 
upstairs room. I recognized his face at a glance as the cloth 
was turned down to permit the requested view of the features 
of the corpse. A few questions elicited the information that 
the captain lodged in the building, and that his affianced also 
lived there. The story of his fatal accident was repeated, with 
interesting details which had not appeared in the daily prints. 
The captain was a somnambulist or sleep-walker, his friends 
had said. The room where he had slept on the fatal night 
was shown to me. It was small, with one small window. 
Examining the window, out of which it was alleged the cap- 
tain had walked in his sleep, I was struck with the difficulty 
of walking out of so small a window with so high a sill. The 
affair began to have a suspicious aspect. It was clear that the 
captain had not walked out of the window in his sleep. The 
room bore none of the disorderly traces of a drunken man, 
and I dismissed as improbable the thought that the captain 
had clambered out of the window and fallen while intoxicated. 
The conclusion was that the unfortunate man had either com- 
mitted suicide while temporarily insane, or had been murdered 
for the insurance money, I feared, with a queer feeling at my 
heart. 

My resolution was taken instantly. The coroner's jury had 
returned a verdict of " accidental dislocation of the neck from 
a fall while asleep " ; but I determined to employ a physician 
and two detectives. Informing the attendants of my early 
return, I immediately repaired to a detective agency and to 
the office of a disinterested physician. Thirty minutes later 
we three met at the lodging house or boarding house or what- 
ever it was. The doctor made a thorough examination of the 
corpse, but found no evidence of violence. It was perfectly 
clear, he said, that the man had fallen and that his neck was 
"broken." The detectives examined the personal effects and 



472 HOMICIDE. 

the sleeping room of the deceased, and took the exact dimen- 
sions and elevation of the window from the ground and the 
floor. They reported some suspicions entertained by the 
neighbors, but gave me no evidence that materially strength- 
ened my suspicions. In the mean time I sought and obtained 
an interview with the bride. A little conversation, added to 
the whisperings brought to me by the detectives, assured me 
that the " beautiful and amiable " bride and beneficiary w^as a 
loose character. Announcing myself as the general agent of 

the Life Insurance Company, and upon the strength 

of that position, I asked some very pointed and personal 
questions. If the frail lady blushed at any of them, her 
blushes were invisible beneath the rouge. I came away satis- 
fied in my own mind that the "bride" had conspired with 
others to drug the captain and throw him out of the window 
upon the pavement below, in the belief that the fall would kill 
him. But how could I prove it in the face of the evidence 
and the coroner's verdict? 

Two years after the death of the captain there strutted into 
my office a well-known sporting character, now living in Oak- 
land, I think. He is known as Major ; let us call him 

Alajor Tea. Approaching the counter, he threw down before 

me the identical binding receipt I had given Captain 

for his premium on a $5,000 endowment policy. "Why has 
that insurance never been paid to the beneficiary? " he 
brusquely demanded. I picked up the receipt and invited the 
sporting " major " into the private office. Closing the door 
softly, and motioning him to a seat, I drew my own chair 
close to his, facing him. After a few moments' silence, I thus 
addressed him, as impressively as possible: 

" You ask me why the policy on the life of the late Captain 

has never been paid. It was never paid because the 

beneficiary, Miss , the betrothed bride, murdered the 

captain ! " 

"Murdered!" exclaimed the major. "What evidence have 
you?" 

" This evidence," said I. " The captain and his ' bride,' 
and two men and women besides, had a hilarious time the 
night before the fatal ' accident.' He was too large a man 



HOMICIDE. 473 

to walk out that little sleeping-chamber window had the sill 
been a low one. He was carried to his room, drunk or 
drugged, and thrown from the window! The distance he 
fell was not sufficient to kill him. I can prove that he was 
assisted to his feet and was conscious. The conspirators did 
not know that a passer-by assisted him into the house. They 
probably administered a drug, or persuaded him to drink him- 
self into unconsciousness. Then the cold-blooded murderers 
deliberately twisted the unconscious captain's head until they 
dislocated his neck! Then he died, and not until then." 

I told the major this with all the impressiveness and dra- 
matic force that I could summon. I told it with good efifect, 
too, for he turned ghastly pale, and exclaimed in trembling 
tones: 

" My God ! I knew nothing of these facts. I am innocent 
of any connection with the affair, and only present the claim 
at the request of the woman." 

" We will not discuss the matter any further," said I mean- 
ingly. " Here is that receipt. Take it back to the woman, 
and tell her that if it is not returned to-morrow by lo o^clock, 

together with a receipt in full for all claims against the 

Life Insurance Company, I shall have you both in prison cells 
by to-morrow afternoon at 3 o'clock!" 

On the following morning, just before 10 o'clock, in walked 
the major with the binding receipt I had given the captain, and 
with a receipt in full of all claims against the company by the 
" bride." The major turned on his heel and walked out of the 
office without a word. I see him occasionally on the street, 
but he does not so much as recognize me with a look, and 
has never spoken or written to me a word on the subject of the 
murder since the memorable afternoon when he left my office 
in such haste and fear. 

A part of my dramatic declaration of evidence of the murder 
I knew was true, and the remainder I believe was true; but 
if the major and the woman had understood the extent of the 
testimony at my command, they would not have been so tract- 
able. I stumbled upon the truth, however, as the result of 
my investigations and reflections; and the conspirators were 
glad enough to call it " quits," and get off with life and liberty. 



474 HOMICIDE. 

EAST INDIAN TREACHERY. 

India, it appears, has not escaped the contagion from which 
the Western nations have suffered in the Une of fraudulent 
invasion of the treasuries of insurance companies, as a brief 
narrative of a recent example will show. A man named 
Anacleto Duarte, described as a landlord, and residing in 
Bombay, appHed to the Sun Life Assurance Company of 
Canada, head office in Montreal, for insurance, and a policy 
for Rs. 10,000 was issued in March, 1895. By its terms it 
was payable to his legal representatives, but was shortly after 
assigned to a chum with whom he was on terms of intimate 
friendship, Francois Xavier Fonseca, absolutely. On May 
17th, the assured died rather suddenly of " fever and bron- 
chitis," according to the attending physician's statement, and 
about the end of May a demand for payment was made on 
the local manager in Bombay, Mr. Ellis. On looking into 
the matter Mr. Ellis found the case required investigation 
before he could recommend the company to pay. Fonseca, 
the assignee, he learned, was only a bailifif in the Small Causes 
Court, in Bombay, at the slender salary of Rs. 20 per month 
only. This increased suspicion, and after gathering consider- 
able collateral information Mr. Ellis put the case into the 
hands of the police. 

At the house of the deceased it was learned that about two 
or three hours before death he had been out drinking freely 
with the assignee. At 8 o'clock in the morning Duarte 
returned home to breakfast, and stated that Fonseca had given 
him a *' glass of rum and a pill." Shortly after sitting down 
to breakfast, he was taken with violent spasms and died within 
a few minutes. A doctor, who was in the habit of attending 
the assured in the past, was called on to write a certificate to 
the effect that the deceased had died of fever, but refused to 
do this, as he had not seen Duarte for about six months. He 
added, however, that he was not astonished that Duarte had 
died suddenly, for he knew he had heart disease, and was 
addicted to excessive drinking. 

About three weeks after burial the body v/as exhumed, and 
the stomach was examined by the Goot analyst, who found in 
it one grain of strychnia. Fonseca was then arrested for 



HOMICIDE. 475 

murder, and the jury, after a sitting of 28 days, brought in a 
verdict of guilty by one majority, and he was then sentenced 
to death. 

The doctor who made the examination kept back from the 
managers of the Sun Life Assurance Company information of 
vital importance, and the doctor who filled up the statement 
in the claim papers never attended the assured in his last illness 
and never even saw him. 

A FRENCH WIFE DESTROYER. 

An investigation at Versailles of charges against a farmer 
named Lecomte, for repeatedly attempting the life of his wife 
for assurance money, developed a history of crime with a 
strange ending. Lecomte, who lived at Orgeval, was a man 
about 36 years old, and of sinister aspect. Over his peasant 
blouse he wore an overcoat, according to the usual custom 
of farmers, and a colored handkerchief. Madame Lecomte 
was a few years younger than her exemplary lord and master, 
whose murderous intents she successfully thwarted, so 
that she was able to appear against him. The details of the 
case threw some interesting lights on French peasant life. 
Lecomte had a farm which brought him in about 31,000 f., or 
£1,240 a year. His first wife had a good dowry, but after her 
death Lecomte neglected his afifairs, and in a few years was 
in serious difficulties. Lecomte was introduced to Mile. Chau- 
vin, from Paris, who was one of those demoiselles avec tache 
mentioned periodically in marriage advertisements in the 
papers. Mile. Chauvin had a dot of nearly £500, which, al- 
though small, would enable Lecomte to tide over temporary 
difficulties. The marriage took place in due course, and 
shortly afterwards Lecomte insured the life of his wife in two 
companies for sums amounting altogether to about £1,500. 
Then he set to work to emulate the Borgias. He began by 
dropping small doses of arsenic into his wife's tea, but that 
lady, without having precisely a cast-iron interior, was evi- 
dently of robust constitution, for the poison took no efifcct 
upon her. Madame Lecomte in the meantime had her sus- 
picions, yet strange to say she commimicated them to nobody, 
but watched and waited. Her husband next dosed her soup. 



476 HOMICIDE. 

but bungled over the operation, inasmuch as he persisted in 
serving it at dinner, which was altogether contrary to his usual 
custom. Accordingly Madame Lecomte asked her charming 
partner to partake of some of the delicacy himself, but he 
refused plumply, saying that he had already taken his portion. 
The woman hereupon boldly accused her husband of sinister 
intentions, but as he protested against her want of confidence, 
she still remained silent and kept her secret to herself. Le- 
comte now tried another plan of demolishing his better half. 
When they were driving home in the dark one night from 
Poissy the fellow endeavored to frighten his wife by telling 
her that the road was infested by footpads, and that he had 
once been attacked himself. Suddenly the lantern of the 
vehicle was put out, and Madame Lecomte, suspecting some- 
thing, felt in her husband's big coat pocket in which he usually 
kept his revolver, and found to her horror that the weapon 
had been removed therefrom. " Give me your hand," she said; 
" I'm afraid ! " and for ten minutes she grasped her husband's 
left hand, his right being devoted to directing the horse. 
■Without warning, however, he threw down the reins and fired 
twice at his companion. She fell back in the carriage, and, 
being but slightly wounded, pretended to be dead, feeling that 
if she stirred she would be killed outright, as there were still 
three bullets in the revolver. Lecomte whipped up his horse, 
and drove up to the mayor's office, at Orgeval, where he 
recounted that his wife had been shot dead by footpads. He 
was disagreeably surprised to find her still alive; so she was 
taken home, and a squad of gendarmes was sent out to scour 
the countryside for the fictitious robbers. While his wife was 
ill, Lecomte renewed his experiments with the arsenic a third 
time, and was seen by a servant — not, however_, before Madame 
Lecomte had taken the dose. The poor woman, what with 
her wounds and the poison, was at death's door, but, wonderful 
to relate, again recovered. Lecomte was arrested, but denied 
his guilt in the feeblest manner. He accused the servants of 
the attempts to poison Madame Lecomte, and in court could 
ofifer no other defense. His victim was questioned as to her 
extraordinary patience and reticence respecting the repeated 
efforts made by the prisoner at the bar to get rid of her, and 



HOMICIDE. 477 

this most amazing of stepmothers answered that she adored 
Lecomte's Httle iboy — the child of the rascal's first marriage — 
and could not bring herself to accuse the father. 

AN AUSTRIAN TRIPLE WIFE MURDER. 

A case of homicide with intent to defraud life-insurance 
companies is reported from Austria, which reveals an unusual 
degree of enormity in crime of this character. A shoemaker 
of Graz, named Zotter, who was born at Foiling in 1839, mar- 
ried his first wife, a widow, in 187 1. At this period he estab- 
lished a matrimonal and real-estate agency. He effected an 
insurance on the life of his wife in the Janus, of Vienna, to the 
amount of 1,000 florins. She died In 1875, and the company 
paid the claim on proof of loss, the cause of death alleged in 
the certificate being typhoid fever. Soon afterward Zotter 
married another widow, the proprietor of a coffee-house, whom 
he also had insured in the Janus for 1,000 florins. The twain 
removed to the village of Gratwein, where they opened a beer 
saloon. Ten days after marriage the second wife died, and 
the cause assigned was some affection of the lungs. There 
being no suspicion of foul play, the Janus promptly paid the 
amount of the policy. This was squandered in riotous living 
in a short time, and on the 6th of February, 1878, he again 
married a widow, Mary Schauer, the possessor of 750 florins. 
Soon after this third marriage he effected upon his new wife 
an insurance for 1,000 florins in the same company, the Janus. 
On the first of April, 1878, the only daughter of his wife died. 
The girl had 524 florins of her own, which her mother, as the 
natural heir, took possession of. About this time it was anony- 
mously whispered to the officers of the Janus that Zotter had 
murdered his first two Mdves, and also his step-daughter, in 
order to obtain the amounts of the policies on the former, and 
with a view to securing by additional crime the inheritance 
left by the latter. On investigation, however, there was not 
evidence sufficiently strong to justify prosecution, and further 
effort was suspended. Meanwhile, Zotter allowed the policy 
in the Janus to lapse for want of payment, and took out a policy 
in another company, the Vaterlandischen, of Elberfeld. for 
1,500 florins. Immediately afterward the wife died, and the 



478 HOMICIDE. 

evidence this time was so strong against the monster who had 
become emboldened by success that escape from retributive 
justice was impossible, and prompt conviction was followed 
by sentence to be immediately hanged. 

A SENSATIONAL POISONING CASE IN PRUSSIA. 

A trial in the Assize Court at Prenzlau, in November, 1895, 
which excited widespread interest in Germany, ended in the 
conviction and sentence of the parties implicated. These were 
a tradesman named Hermann Springstein, and his sister, 
Auguste, widow of a locksmith named Bock. They were 
accused of poisoning, between 1886 and 1895, no fewer than 
seven persons, including their father and mother, the male 
prisoner's wife, the husband of the female prisoner Bock, her 
son Alfred Bock, and an unmarried woman named Fiebelkorn. 
But the indictment upon which they were arraigned was limited 
to a single one of these crimes — the murder of the male pris- 
oner's wife, on March 7, 1895, with premeditation — the other 
charges being investigated collaterally. A motive for the 
alleged crimes was suggested by the fact that the lives of the 
deceased persons had been insured for considerable sums. 

Hermann Springstein, though latterly keeping a grocery 
store, was a blacksmith by trade, and had also dabbled in vet- 
erinary surgery, in connection with which he acquired some 
knowledge of poisons. He lived at Konigsberg until 1893, 
when he removed to Anklam, and thence to Pasewalk, his 
sister Auguste keeping house for him. At Pasewalk, in July, 
1893, he married, and in May of the following year he came 
jto Prenzlau. His wife died suddenly on March 7th last, after 
an attack of cramp, to which Springstein said she was subject. 
Dr. Beutlich, the family doctor, next day gave a certificate to 
the effect that Mrs. Springstein had died from spasmodic con- 
striction of the larynx. The body was exhumed a fortnight 
later by order of the Public Prosecutor. An examination of 
the intestines made by Dr. Bischofif, the police chemical expert 
in Berlin, established the presence of 0.034 grammes of strych- 
nine in the stomach and intestines, while . perceptible traces 
of the same poison were found in other viscera. The life 
of the deceased had been insured by her husband for 3,000 



HOMICIDE. 479 

marks. The attention of the authorities was then turned to 
six other cases of death under suspicious circumstances which 
had occurred in the prisoner's household between 1886 and 
1892, while Springstein was living at Konigsberg. The brother- 
in-law's life was insured for 12,000 marks. The bodies of these 
persons were also exhumed, but though traces of arsenic were 
found in the intestines of Springstein's parents, the poison was 
not present in sufficient quantities to justify the conclusion 
that it was the cause of death. The bodies were, however, in 
an advanced state of decomposition. Springstein was alleged 
to have been in the habit of making his wife drunk, and the 
woman frequently complained that after drinking liquor given 
to her by her husband, and also after eating food prepared by 
the female prisoner, she suffered from cramps in the throat, 
such as might be occasioned by strychnine poisoning. Quan- 
tities of strychnine, sulphuric acid, and other poisons were 
found in Springstein's house. 

Twenty-five witnesses, including three experts, were cited for 
the prosecution. 

Springstein was a powerfully-built, unkempt man of rough 
exterior, and his sister a common-looking woman, speaking 
with a strong Berlin lower-class accent. Both maintained a 
callous demeanor during the proceedings, the woman on sev- 
eral occasions impudently interrupting the presiding judge in 
the course of his questioning. 

The prisoners having pleaded not guilty, the President pro- 
ceeded to interrogate them as to the death of their father. 
Springstein, in reply, described life in the paternal household 
as being wretched in the extreme. He and his father fre- 
quently came to blows, and had quarrels of the most violent 
character. His father drank heavily, and prisoner alleged that 
his sudden death was the result of drink. 

Interrogated as to his veterinary practice, Springstein said it 
was true that he had insured the lives of cattle for large sums, 
but he repudiated the suggestion that he had poisoned them 
in order to obtain the insurance money. He admitted that he 
had recommended to his brother a certain vegetable poison 
which he described as sure and effectual, leaving no traces 
behind. Springstein denied that he had poisoned the young 
woman named Fiebelkorn. 



480 HOMICIDE. 

The Public Prosecutor, Herr Unger, here pointed out that 
shortly after Springstein senior's death the woman in question 
expressed the belief that he had been poisoned. Two days 
later she was dead herself. 

His mother, prisoner said, had died after drinking some very 
strong coffee. She had to go out and dig potatoes one night, 
and his sister handed her a cup of coffee before she left the 
house. 

Several witnesses testified that on the evening in question 
the old woman, while she was working, suddenly screamed out 
that she had been poisoned, and asked for a drink of milk. 
Some milk and water was handed her by a neighbor, but she 
died soon afterwards. 

Prisoner stated that his mother might possibly have taken 
arsenic in mistake for salts. In explanation of his being in 
possession of poisons, Springstein alleged that he sold quan- 
tities of poison for killing foxes. 

The female prisoner, questioned as to the manner of her 
husband's death, said his lungs were not strong, and he was 
also troubled with his heart and stomach. The poison found 
on him was, she declared, quite harmless. 

One witness stated that on one occasion Mrs. Bock remarked 
to her, "There were six deaths in our house this year — my 
mother, my husband, and my son, two horses and a dog," add- 
ing *' and the dog had the finest funeral." 

At the close of the proceedings the male prisoner was 
observed to be making signs to the warden, who was taking 
him back to his cell. The President promptly recalled him 
and asked what he meant, to which the accused replied in 
Berlin slang: " Off goes my head; then off go I to heaven." 

Three medical experts deposed that Springstein's wife had 
been slowly poisoned through repeated doses of strychnine ad- 
ministered to her, and expressed the opinion that his father 
and mother, brother-in-law, and nephew had all been similarly 
poisoned. 

The jury replied in the affirmative on each count of the in- 
dictment, and the sentence of death was pronounced on both 
prisoners. 



FEMALE POISONERS. 481 



FEMALE POISONERS. 
THE BELGIAN POISONER, MADAME JONIAUX. 

The trial of Madame Marie Therese Joniaux at the Ant- 
werp Assize Court, in January, 1895, ^^^ the poisoning of three 
relatives, in order to obtain the insurances upon their lives, 
created a profound sensation among the aristocratic circles 
of Brussels and Antwerp, in which she had moved. This dis- 
ciple of the Brinvilliers school was the daughter of a dis- 
tinguished cavalry officer. General Ablay, occupied a good 
social position, had been twice married, first to the historian 
M. Frederic Faber, and afterward to M. Henri Joniaux, chief 
engineer to the department of roads and bridges, lived in a 
fine mansion in the Rue des Verviers, and at the time of her 
arrest and trial was fifty-one years of age. 

The victims were her sister, Leonie Ablay, her' brother, 
Alfred Ablay, and her uncle, Jacques Van Den Kerchove. 
Mile. Leonie was insured for 30,000 francs in the Baloise and 
40,000 francs in the Nederland (the Madame paying the pre- 
miums), in the beginning of January, 1892, and died suddenly 
February 25th, in Madame Joniaux's house. In March, 1893, 
the uncle, who was a bachelor sixty years of age, a wealthy 
manufacturer of Ghent, and an ex-Senator, died suddenly after 
a dinner to which he had been specially invited at Madame's 
house. It was given out that the cause was apoplexy. Only a few 
weeks before his death M. Kerchove had insured his life for 
a large sum in a Belgian office for the benefit of the Joniaux 
family. In February, 1894, M. Alfred Ablay, who had recently 
arrived in Belgium from Paris, was disposed of in a similarly 
speedy manner. He had been insured with an English com- 
pany, the Gresham, for 100,000 francs, Madame Joniaux pay- 
ing the premium. The attention of the management of the 
Gresham was called to the suspicious rapidity with which the 



482 FEMALE POISONERS. 

policy had matured, and the impetuous haste of the beneficiary 
in claiming payment. The Gresham officials proceeded with 
marked forbearance and reluctance, and only after the most 
careful examination of all the surroundings of the case. Then 
the co-operation of the authorities was invoked, and exhuma- 
tion and examination of the three bodies followed. Traces 
of morphia were found in the intestines, and it was afterward 
in evidence that she had repeatedly procured morphia from 
Brussels chemists on forged orders for prescriptions. 

On the trial the motive was disclosed. Upon Madame's 
own admission, though supposed by the world to be in com- 
fortable, even affluent circumstances, she had been for many 
years pecuniarily embarrassed. It was shown that she was 
endeavoring to borrow money on the representation that her 
daughter by her first husband. Mile. Jeanne Faber, would, 
when of age, inherit a large fortune, and the lender was to be 
secured by policies on Mile. Jeanne's life. It v/as shown that 
she was always in debt, and had recourse to all sorts of tricks 
and devices, even to cheating at cards, to procure money to 
meet her liabilities. These desperate expedients to minister 
to her love of luxury were commented on in scathing terms 
by the Public Prosecutor, M. Servais, in the course of his 
review of the testimony in his speech to the jury. The par- 
ticulars of the part she played in effecting insurances on the 
lives of the deceased parties were fully detailed by a " cloud of 
witnesses." 

The number of the witnesses called for the prosecution was 
remarkable. Altogether, 261 were called to the stand, while 
61 were summoned for the defense. The indictment was note- 
worthy for its length, the reading lasting an hour and a half. 
It recapitulated at the outset the manner in which the three 
relatives of the accused met their death, and stated the circum.- 
stances leading up to the arrest of Mme. Joniaux. After 
mentioning the names of the accused's relatives, it dealt ex- 
haustively with the financial position of M. and Mme. Joniaux, 
pointing out that for many years she had been involved in a 
most complicated system of borrowing in order to live up to 
her position. It referred in connection with this fact to anony- 
mous letters received bv relatives of the accused, threatening 



FEMALE POISONERS. 483 

a scandal about the drowning of Lionel, second son of M. 
Alfred Ablay (who was supposed to have committed suicide 
in October, 1890), unless certain sums were paid as the price 
of silence. These letters were declared by experts to be in 
the handwriting of the accused. The indictment next dwelt 
with the question of the assurances, and also the point already 
noted that Mme. Joniaux was anxious to obtain a dowry for 
her daughter, and was engaged in effecting assurances in her 
favor at the very time she was borrowing money on the repre- 
sentation that her daughter would, when of age, inherit a very 
large fortune. The remainder of the indictment was largely 
devoted to a refutation of the theory that Alfred Ablay com- 
mitted suicide after an alleged forgery. 

The counsel for the defense, M. Graux, of the Brussels bar, 
and M. Hendricks, of the Antwerp bar, fought the prosecu- 
tion, step by step, with extraordinary energy. But the Public 
Prosecutor was relentless, and he pressed point after point to 
conclusion with such unerring and resistless force that the 
prisoner was goaded to constant retort and interruption. The 
reports of the trial were garnished with her impudent rejoin- 
ders and dramatic denials, appeals and protests. The sensa- 
tional scenes she created were evidently intended to arouse 
public sympathy, but beyond admiration of the unusual mental 
power she displayed in her intellectual duels with the prose- 
cutor, they had no effect upon people who could see behind 
the veil of effrontery a career of duplicity and falsification. 

The evidence of the medical experts, as usual, was contra- 
dictory. Dr. Van Vyve exhibited in court, glass discs con- 
taining morphia which he had obtained from the intestines of 
Alfred Ablay, while Dr. Stienon for the defense was perti- 
naciously positive that Alfred died of heart disease, and that 
what was taken for morphia consisted of the closely resembling 
toxic products of putrefaction, or putrefactive alkaloids, called 
by pathologists ptomaines. 

In closing his address to the jury the Public Prosecutor 
caused a profound sensation by reading the following words, 
which, he said, had been written upon a visiting card by M. 
Joniaux, the prisoner's husband, a fortnight after the death 
of her first husband, M. Faber: '* Your every wish is being 



484 FEMALE POISONERS. 

realized." '' If you acquit the prisoner," the learned counsel 
asked, addressing the jury in impressive tones, " who will be 
her next victim?" 

The jury retired to consider their verdict at one o'clock in 
the morning. At a quarter to two o'clock the stroke of a 
bell announced their return, and, amid a scene of intense ex- 
citement and suspense, the judges resumed their seats upon 
the bench. A moment later the jurymen filed into court. The 
foreman, M. Barboux, who appeared to be much moved, an- 
nounced, in reply to usual questions, that they found the pris- 
oner guilty of all of the six issues submitted to them, the issue 
in regard to each of the three persons alleged to have been 
murdered being a double one — namely, whether the prisoner 
had with intent caused the death of the person named; and 
secondly, whether she had done so by means of substances 
calculated to cause death. In regard to each of the questions 
put seriatim the jury answered in the affirmative. 

No sooner had the jury delivered their verdict than loud 
applause followed. The President ordered the gendarmes on 
duty to clear the court if all expressions of opinion were not 
immediately suppressed. The prisoner was then brought back 
into court. She was completely unnerved, and when the ver- 
dict of the jury was read to her she staggered and fell in a 
fainting fit on the prisoner's bench. The Advocate-General 
asked the court to pronounce sentence of death. The judges 
retired and returned after an interval of ten minutes. Sen- 
tence of death was then pronounced in the usual manner. 

A large crowd awaited the termination of the trial outside, 
and as soon as the news that the prisoner had been condemned 
to death was received, loud cries of satisfaction were heard in 
all directions. People shrieked themselves hoarse, and sang 
"Down with Joniaux! Let us lynch her! Let us hang her!" 

The condemned woman was conveyed back to jail in a 
prison van, guarded by a strong force of gendarmes, the crowd 
following with shouts and jeers. 



The contention of the medical experts, to which only brief 
reference has been made, has brought Into bold relief a ques- 



FEMALE POISONERS. 485 

tion, the future bearings of which, in medical jurisprudence, are 
of obvious importance. Since the bacteriologists have shown 
that a large proportion of pathogenic action formerly unac- 
counted for and unexplained is due to the production of 
ptomaines, the name given to the alkaloids of putrefaction 
due to the presence of bacteria, a new difficulty has been intro- 
duced into legal medicine. Aside from the proof we now 
have that infectious diseases are the product of the ptomaines 
resulting from the action of bacteria, we are confronted with 
the fact that, as Mr. Stanford puts it in his address at the 
British Pharmaceutical Conference, at Edinburgh, " these 
highly toxic alkaloids have been mistaken for other poisonous 
alkaloids in post-mortem examinations of human subjects 
where poisoning was suspected. In some criminal cases these 
have been mistaken for coniine, strychnine, delphinine, and 
morphine, which they closely resemble in their reactions. 
Others resemble nicotine, atropine, digitaline, veratrine, cura- 
rine. It is obvious, therefore, that post-mortem examination 
for poisons presents hitherto unsuspected difficulties." A case 
in point occurred in the Sonsogna trial at Cremona, Italy, 
where ptomaines were mistakenly identified as morphine, the 
reaction being the same. In another trial, that of General 
Gibbone's servant for the murder of his master by poison, the 
experts for the prosecution reported delphinine in the viscera. 
The defense proved, however, that although the substance 
responded to delphinine reactions it was not delphinine at all. 
With reference to this subject, Dr. John J. Reese, the eminent 
toxicologist, very properly says, '' It cannot be doubted that 
the alleged existence of ptomaines will be constantly employed 
by counsel in defending a criminal charged with poisoning 
with one of the vegetable alkaloids; urging strongly before 
the jury the possibility that the alleged poisonous alkaloid 
was in reality one of those spontaneously generated ptomaines. 
Such a course is stated to have been actually taken at the 
Lamson trial, in London, in 1883. On the other hand, it 
might be speciously argued by the prosecution that the reason 
for the non-discovery of the alleged alkaloid was to be attri- 
buted to the interfering presence of some ptomaine." For 
it should be remembered that while some of these alkaloids 



486 FEMALE POISONERS. 

of (putrefaction are extremely poisonous, many of them are 
inert, while others act antagonistically to certain poisonous 
alkaloids. 

A FAMOUS KANSAS MATRICIDE. 

Frankie Morris, alias Mrs. A. A. Hurd, alias Mrs. H. D. 
Loveland, a woman of somewhat over thirty years, tall, grace- 
ful, of striking personal appearance, and of unusual intelli- 
gence and animation, was accused of murdering her mother, 
Mrs. Nancy J. Poinsett, by means of poison administered in 
a glass of beer, November 5th, 1884, to obtain the sum of 
$15,000 insurance on her life. Mrs. Morris, as she called her- 
self, and her mother formerly lived in Erie, Kansas, where, 
it is reported, she met a young man named Cinnamon, who 
won her affections and then betrayed her. From this time 
forward her career was singularly eventful. She was next 
heard of as the mistress of a house of ill-fame in Great Bend, 
Kansas. Here she met A. A. Hurd, a rising young attorney, 
who, like many others, was ensnared by her extraordinary 
power of fascination. In a few weeks he was completely 
under her domination, and in the course of a year he married 
her. They removed to Topeka, Kansas, where are situated 
the general offices of the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe 
Railroad, with which Mr. Hurd became connected as general 
attorney for the State of Kansas. Mrs. Hurd's former dis- 
creditable history not being known in her new home, she was 
enabled to move in respectable society in the capital city of 
the State, and for a while everything apparently went on 
smoothly. Her husband had a good salary, and, with plenty 
of money at her disposal, a favorable opportunity was offered 
to make amends for her past life. But she did not seem in- 
clined to take advantage of her good fortune. She wearied of 
the tameness of domestic life and longed for the freedom and 
excitement of her former career. She and her husband lived 
unhappily. As she said on her trial, she '' occasionally cursed 
him," and it was apparent that it was but a matter of time when 
they would separate. Anticipating this outcome, she deter- 
mined in some way to bind Hurd to her fortunes by stronger 
ties than at that time existed. She became sick and concluded 



FEMALE POISONERS. 487 

to visit Hot Springs, Kan., for improvement in health. While 
there she was attended by a well-known physician, who had 
among his patients at the same time a woman named Foster, 
who gave birth to a child, and not wishing to keep it, Mrs. Hurd 
offered to take charge of it. On her return to Topeka, she 
palmed it off on her husband and friends as her own. But 
even this ruse, although successfully worked, was not suf- 
ficient, and in 1883 a divorce was obtained in the Shawnee 
County Court by agreement. 

The restless intrigante was not idle in the meantime. Among 
those with whom she came in contact in Topeka was a prom- 
ising young man named Loveland. He was happily married, 
had a pleasant home, an attractive family, and a paying bus- 
iness. As soon as he became acquainted with Mrs. Hurd, he 
appeared to lose all interest in his home, family, and business. 
He was devotion itself to the charmer, and when she obtained 
a divorce he became her lover, according to the testimony in 
the case, although he was married to a wife who was a highly 
educated and beautiful woman. In his blind infatuation he 
neglected his family, several of his children died, and at last 
his wife, broken down in mind and body with the shame and 
disgrace that her faithless husband had brought upon her, 
became insane, and was taken to an asylum. 

Under the laws of Kansas this was a sufficient ground for 
obtaining a divorce, and Loveland was separated from his wife 
in the Sedgwick County Court. 

Soon after the divorce was granted to Mr. and Mrs. Hurd, 
according to the testimony on which she was convicted, the 
latter, who had taken the name of Frankie Morris, appears to 
have conceived a plan to obtain a large amount of insurance 
on the life of her mother. The first move was to induce her 
mother, Mrs. Nancy J. Poinsett, an old lady keeping a board- 
ing-house at Cherry vale, Kansas, to take out a policy of $5,000 
in the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York. The 
policy was secured through the instrumentality of the defend- 
ant's divorced husband, and the first premium was paid by 
him out of the money due her as alimony. Mrs. Morris was 
at that time living in Topeka. She moved to Kansas City, 
and in a few weeks made her appearance in the office of the 



488 FEMALE POISONERS. 

Equitable Life Assurance Society of New York. She ex- 
pressed a desire for a policy on her mother's life for $10,000, 
herself and child to be the beneficiaries, and eventually a 
policy for that amount was issued. It is stated that applica- 
tions were also made to several other companies, but for some 
reason not made public they were declined. Frankie then 
proceeded to complete her plans. Her mother was persuaded 
against her own wishes to move from her home in Cherryvale, 
where the family was well known, to Chanute, on the plea of 
getting a more desirable location. Before they had been there 
very long, Frankie proposed to celebrate the election of Cleve- 
land, on the 5th of November, with Kansas beer. A boy was 
sent out for the beer, and on his return he delivered it to 
Frankie, who obtained a glass from a cupboard near by, and 
pouring out a portion gave it to her mother, she herself 
drinking from the bottle. In a very short time Mrs. Poinsett 
exhibited the characteristic symptoms of arsenical poisoning, 
and soon afterward died. The attending physician, it was 
alleged, appeared to be under some sinister influence, and with- 
held statements which should have been made in his certifi- 
cate. For this inaction or concealment it is also said that he 
afterward narrowly escaped indictment by the grand jury. On 
the day after the burial of the victim, application for payment 
of the insurance was made with indecent haste. This hurried 
action aroused suspicion, investigation followed, and Frankie 
was held for the action of the grand jury. Dr. E. H. S. 
Bailey, professor of chemistry in the State University at Law- 
rence, was employed to make a chemical analysis of various 
organs removed from the body of Mrs. Poinsett. He found 
in the stomach, liver, and other viscera, arsenic in much more 
than sufficient quantity to prove fatal. In due time the grand 
jury found a bill of indictment for murder, and the case came 
up for trial at Erie, Kan., August 4th, 1885. The chain of 
circumstantial evidence was ably presented in the Neosho 
County Court room before Judge Stillwell, in the examination 
of witnesses and in the summary before the jury by the prose- 
cuting attorney, C. A. Cox, and his colleague on the part of 
the State, C. F. Hutchings. After a patient hearing, which 



FEMALE POISONERS. 489 

lasted a week, the jury brought in a verdict of murder in the 
first degree. 

On the 7th of September ajppHcation was made for a new 
trial. The grounds were flimsy, the most prominent being 
the use by the prosecutor of opprobrious expressions outside 
of the record and unwarrantably prejudicial to the defendant. 
The spell exercised over the contestants by the syren was 
amazing. On the 30th of November, when the case came up 
for a re-hearing, a nolle prosequi was entered, and an order of 
dismissal gave Frankie her freedom. 

The representatives of the companies involved. Major T. C. 
Caskin, of the Equitable Life, and Mr. D. C. Gillette, of the 
Mutual Life, addressed a letter to the prosecuting officer of 
Neosho County, Charles A. Cox, in which statements and 
comments occur that are essential to the completion of this 
narrative. They said: 

Although in the public prints and throughout the State we have 
been represented as having incited this prosecution, of publicly and 
to her face threatening Mrs. Morris with indictment and arrest if she 
attempted to recover under her policies, no one knows so well as 
you (unless it be her attorneys) that never have either of us seen, 
written or spoken to either Mrs. Morris or any or either of her 
attorneys, or authorized any such communication for us for the com- 
panies we represent; nor have the companies by any other so com- 
municated with her or hers; nor have we ever uttered any public 
threat or privately indulged in malice or vindictiveness. 

You and others are our witnesses that from the moment the facts 
were placed in your possession upon which we based our opinion that 
Mrs. Poinsett had been poisoned (and you so quickly saw your duty 
and in such manly way moved along its unpleasant path), we have 
never intruded even a suggestion. 

In your own good time, and according to your opportunities, you 
led the case from the presumption attending the circumstances of 
Mrs. Poinsett's death to the indictment, arraignment, trial, and con- 
viction of her daughter for murder. We asked no more of you than 
the people, or than all good citizens have a right to expect— that you 
should do your duty— and you did it nobly, in accordance with the 
forms of law and the usages of the courts. 

You asked of us help and we gave it. You desired that Mr. Hutch- 
ings should be retained to assist you, and he was. at your request, 
so retained by us, and stated in open court precisely the circum- 
stances attending his presence in the case and the attitude of the 
companies towards it. 



490 FEMALE POISONERS. 

Our interest was not pecuniary; it is not so now, or at least the 
pecuniary elements involved are so trifling that without them our 
course would have been the same. 

Our business had unfortunately supplied the motive for a dreadful and 
unnatural crime ; such a crime against life, law, order and the homes 
and hearts of society as to defy belief if conviction were not forced 
upon us and similar deeds did not crowd the records of the courts. 
We represent two associations, paying on an average $1,000,000 a 
month, year in and year out, to the legal representatives of those who 
die of our membership; and Mrs. Morris would have been of the 
number of our beneficiaries long since if we could have had the 
slightest doubt of her guilt or the faintest excuse in law or equity. 
As Mr. Hutchings so ably stated, a principle is at hazard, one that 
threatens the fundamental rights of every individual or association of 
individuals — whether a cruel, cold-blooded murder can be done for 
money, and those who are the victims, people and property, be com- 
pelled to sit calmly by with folded hands and say to the fiend, " Thy 
will be done." 

We know (or if we do not, the noble array of attorneys for the 
Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railroad Company, marshalled in 
groups for the defense, can tell us) that we are two wealthy corpora- 
tions (albeit our principle is benevolent and our reward honorable), 
and therefore we must partake of the strange perversion of the public 
moral sense that applies a different law to our wrongs from that to 
an individual; but the jury in this case did not so consider. They 
saw no difference between the inherent rights of one or many, and 
recognized the principle that brought us into the prosecution. They 
recognized more than that. They saw that there was no difference 
between this and any other murder, except in the pitiless manner of 
its execution and the wolfish greed of the motives, and we venture 
to say that not between the lids of all recorded trials can be found 
its parallel for open infamy: for its disclosure of domestic infidelity 
and incontinence; for the exhibition of wrecks of human character, 
or for illustrations of the perversion of the law and the undisguised 
array of perjury and moral filth. 

The verdict came and was hailed as a triumph of justice rare in these 
days of expediency and quibble. There had been some mutterings of 
discontent and alarm when, upon the arraignment, the court (in its 
discretion, perhaps) fixed the bail of the accused, which, however, 
she could not furnish, and in consequence awaited her trial in jail. 
But the verdict silenced all criticism and the conduct of the court 
acquitted it of all undue clemency. 

Mark the change. 

The motion for a new trial was in order and a day set for its hear- 
ing; active preparations were begun by counsel for both sides: argu- 
ment was made and decision rendered: that decision and what followed 
mark an era in the trial ot capital offenses in Kansas. 



FEMALE POISONERS. 491 

There was not an intimation that the accused was not guihy. The 
honored court saw no evidence, no error of law, no virtue in the 
exceptions cited, no admission of irrelevant testimony upon which 
a new trial could be granted; but out of his memory his Honor 
plucked the tardy consciousness of opprobrious epithets and expres- 
sions employed by the prosecution when addressing the jury, which 
although not objected to at the time by either court or counsel, " were 
outside the record and had a tendency to prejudice the jury against 
the accused." 

When, since there were trials, has it not been the sworn duty of 
prosecuting officers to find cause of conviction and to press that 
cause with all their might upon the jury? Or when did previous 
good or bad character of the accused cease to furnish the strongest 
presumption of innocence or guilt? 

But such a decision was apparently only preliminary to what fol- 
lowed. The court then admitted the prisoner to bail, which was fur- 
nished and she left the august presence. 

Section 9 of the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the State of 
Kansas provides that 

" All persons shall be bailable by sufficient sureties, except for capital 
offenses when proof is evident or the presumption is great." 

Proof had been taken in open court, and presumption had become 
conviction. There was no discretion anywhere, not even in the law; 
the prisoner's place was in the jail, and every man in court knew it. 

We are not surprised at the tales we hear of your discouragement 
when you see the fabric of yo*ur great labor for right and law fallen 
to ashes; or that, as we hear, the county commissioners hesitate 
involving the county in debt to set up houses that will not be allowed 
to stand; and we comprehend how, yesterday, the defense stood with 
brazen front, surrounded by its witnesses, while the State looked 
around in vain for a friend. If either counsel, mindful of the honor 
and dignity of his profession, could contemplate the predicament 
to which the court had reduced a faithful and successful servant 
without shame and sorrow, nothing but an equal slight could stir his 
sense of right or wake his alarm for the fate of the law he practices. 

We do not believe that the people of Kansas, young though the 
commonwealth is, will long submit to such methods and indignities. 
The time must come when crime will not excite admiration; when 
criminals will not hold receptions in gorgeous toilets and trip gayly 
to their homes after kissing their hand to the judge and jury. We 
see the dawn of a nobler day in the conviction in this case when, 
before an upright and fearless jury, in solemn trial, to which the 
defendant and her counsel came with wine, women and laughter, as 
to a carnival, and were rebuked of justice and an outraged people — 
however much they now triumph. 

But we are with you as before if, out of the chaos and wreck, you 
see wherein we can serve the. State. We are not the public prose- 



492 FEMALE POISONERS. 

cutors. We do not assume such office. This is and must be a prose- 
cution by the State in which we cannot dictate nor direct. Such aid 
and support as is due from every law-abiding and law-respecting 
citizen we stand ever ready to furnish, and if consistent with your 
duty, we should be pleased to know your purposes in the matter. 

The disgust and indignation with which the community 
regarded the escape of the woman were clearly typified in the 
newspapers of the day. The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, for 
example, said: 

The facility with which new trials are granted to persons convicted 
of murder makes it necessary to provide by law for the preservation 
of evidence. Frankie Morris, formerly an inmate of a cow-boy dance- 
house at Dodge City, a woman whose life has been notoriously wicked 
and cruel, was convicted by the most conclusive evidence and by the 
unanimous verdict of an unprejudiced jury in Kansas of having pois- 
oned her old mother with arsenic to obtain $15,000 of insurance which 
she had taken out on the old woman's life. Obtaining a new trial 
on some flimsy pretense, her friends have managed to get two of the 
most important witnesses against her out of the reach of the State 
authorities, and in the absence of the essential witnesses the prose- 
cution has had to dismiss the case against her. Thus justice is baffled 
and defeated in one of the clearest cases of murder in the annals of 
crime. Yet all the constitutional requirements and all the require- 
ments of a fair trial were complied wtth when those two -witnesses 
had once given their testimony in court confronting the accused. 
An official record of that testimony, preserved by law for use in any 
new trial granted, would have prevented the defense from using the 
merciful concession of a new trial merely as an opportunity for de- 
feating justice by spiriting away or murdering witnesses. 

THE EXECUTION OF A POISONER. 

On the morning of June 25th, 1889, Mrs. Sarah Jane White- 
ling was executed at Moyamensing Prison, Philadelphia, for 
the murder, by arsenical poisoning, of her husband, John 
Whiteling, aged 36, March 20th, 1888; her daughter Bertha, 
aged 9, April 24th; and her son WilHe, aged 3, May 26th. Mr. 
Whiteling's life was insured for $230, Bertha's for $122, and 
WilHe's for $47, a total of $399. 

For this paltry sum this unwomanly woman sacrificed the 
lives of husband and children, according to her own free and 
full confession, with calculation so cold, and purpose so delib- 
erate, that suspicion was naturally aroused as to her sanity. 



FEMALE POISONERS. 493 

But the carefully conducted examinations of the experts 
showed beyond question that the woman was sane, and the 
condition of the brain as revealed by an autopsy after execu- 
tion confirmed their conclusions. 

In spite of the proved and acknowledged enormity of this 
woman's ofifence, the usual enginery of morbid sentimentality 
was set at work to save her from the gallows. The plea that 
a woman ought not to be hung, even though by such crimes 
she unsexes herself, was pushed and pressed to the last degree 
by the sentimentalists who expend upon murderers the sym- 
pathy that ought to go to the murdered. To their untiring 
interference with the course of justice, was added the equally 
exhaustless ingenuity of criminal lawyers, a class of wranglers 
and obstructives whose defiant interference with the course of 
justice is one of the great scandals of the age. 

But beyond a short reprieve by Governor Beaver, all organ- 
ized pressure upon the Board of Pardons failed to extort clem- 
ency, and the law was allowed to pursue its course. The case 
was noteworthy because Mrs. Whiteling is the first of the 
females who have resorted to homicide for the purpose of 
defrauding life companies, to expiate her crime on the gal- 
lows. Even the number of male murderers who have paid 
the extreme penalty is sadly disproportionate to the number 
of those who have escaped. They can be counted on one's 
fingers, while a score of known murderers, to say nothing of 
those unknown except to Omniscience, have, in one way or 
another, managed to evade the demands of justice. In at 
least three or four cases where men and women combined in 
planning and executing their murderous work, the women 
were worse impersonations of evil passion than the men, just 
as Lady Macbeth was more unscrupulous than her husband. 
The case of Mrs. Whiteling may serve as a warning hereafter 
to criminals of her own sex that they must not look to sex 
itself for immunity from the consequences of their actions. 

A FAMILY SLAUGHTERER. 

The history of the Somerville, Mass., poisoner, Mrs. Sarah 
J. Robinson, shows the successful removal of her entire family 



494 FEMALE POISONERS. 

before she was convicted in due process of law. Her victims 
were seven in number: Moses, her husband; Lizzie J., her 
daughter; WiUie J., her son; Prince Arthur Freeman, her 
brother-in-law; his son Thomas; Mrs. P. A. Freeman, her 
sister, and Oliver Sleeper, who boarded in her house, and is 
supposed to have been a distant relative. Sleeper's death was 
the first, Moses Robinson's second, and Mrs. Freeman's, 
whose death occurred in February, 1885, the third. Previous 
to Prince A. Freeman's death Mrs. Robinson had his life insur- 
ance made over to her. In June, 1885, P. A. Freeman died, 
his infant child having died in the meantime. Thomas A. 
Freeman, a son of P. A. Freeman, for whom there was the 
sum of $2,000 in trust, died a short time afterwards; then fol- 
lowed the death of Lizzie J. Robinson; and finally that of 
Willie J. Robinson. As the amount of the claim in each case 
was paid, the money seemed to stimulate the fiend to fresh 
exertion. With the exception of Oliver Sleeper, the calculat- 
ing assassin confined her operations to the members of her 
own family successively. 

Mrs. Robinson was first tried for the murder of her 
daughter, but escaped the penalty through the disagreement 
of the jury. She was then tried for the murder of her brother- 
in-law, P. A. Freeman, and found guilty in the first degree. 
The usual interposition of criminal lawyers and of morbid sen- 
timentality saved the inhuman wretch from the gallows. 

ANOTHER MASSACHUSETTS CASE. 

Holyoke furnished a second edition of the foregoing family 
destroyer in the person of Mrs. Lizzie Brennan, who was 
arrested at her home on the 26th of May, 1889, on suspicion 
of having caused the death of her husband and two sons by 
mixing arsenic with their food. The Brennans had six chil- 
dren, and Mrs. Brennan succeeded in insuring the lives of 
them all, including herself and husband, for sums ranging from 
$300 to $2,000, the policies being made payable to herself. 
The husband, Michael Brennan, died in the preceding July 
under suspicious circumstances. James Brennan, a son, died 
suddenly about six weeks before the woman's arrest. She sup- 



FEMALE POISONERS. 495 

posed his life insurance had been increased, but on claiming it 
at his death she found the increase had been made by mistake 
in the policy of his brother Thomas. It was the ill-fated 
Thomas's turn next, and he followed speedily. He had been 
taken violently sick about two weeks before his death and went 
into the country, where he rallied. On returning home he 
was taken sick again and died in great agony. Beside such 
destroyers of the home circle Lucrezia Borgia might pose as a 
saint. 

A PRINCETON STORY. 

The trial of Mrs. Mattie C. Shann, of Princeton, N. J,, 
charged with the murder of her twenty-year old son, John 
F. Shann, by slow poison, was commenced on the 8th of 
August, 1893, and ended on the 19th, with a verdict of ac- 
quittal. The alleged motive was to obtain the amount of 
insurance, $2,000, upon her son's life. Since the accused was 
freed, it seems hardly worth while to rehearse the details of 
the dismal story. The case is added to the long list of those 
in which the prosecuting officers, with apparently abundant 
testimony within reach, failed to convict. Whatever the basis 
of the procedure of the State in the course of suspicion, arrest, 
imprisonment, indictment, and trial, the jury could directly 
reach no other conclusion. If the woman was guilty, and yet 
allowed to escape, no fault can reasonably rest with the jury. 

To those, however, who sift and probe and dissect with the 
trained eye and hand of the inquisitor who is familiar with 
the varied forms of criminal assault upon life-insurance com- 
panies, there are always diagnostic signs which to them are 
sufficiently clear and indicative. These are often passed over 
lightly by the prosecutors for the State, or twisted out of their 
significance by the lawyers for the defense; and criminal law- 
yers, as we know, are not over-scrupulous. In the present 
case, for example, the audacious scheme by which analysis 
of the alimentary canal was precluded was of itself conclusive. 
John died on Monday night, and on the night following three 
men entered the house and disemboweled the body. It was 
a bungling piece of work, but the object was accomplished — 
the removal of the digestive tract. The analytical chemists 



496 FEMALE POISONERS. 

were therefore confined to the kidneys and the brain in their 
search for the bichloride of mercury with which John had been 
poisoned. j\lrs. Shann's patched-up account, on the witness- 
stand, of the nocturnal visit, was ingenious enough to create 
doubt in the mind of the average juryman; but those who 
have been drilled to weigh and measure with dispassionate 
scales, attach to such explanation or plea simply what it is 
actually worth — only this and nothing more. 

The reporters with their usual froth and gush had much 
to say about the innocent looks, the evident refinement, the 
tasteful dress, the admirable behavior, etc., of the prisoner. 
The public was treated to the same sort of nauseating stuf¥ in 
the case of Mrs. Victor in Ohio, of ^Irs. Wharton in Balti- 
more, of Mrs. Maybrick in London. These effusive writers 
appear to forget what Hamlet has told them, " The devil hath 
power to assume a pleasing shape." The best that can be 
said of such women is that if their guilt was not proved, 
neither was their innocence established. 

FIXED THE HUSBAND, BUT FAILED WITH THE SON. 

The widow \^andegrift, at Alt. Holly, X. J., undertook to 
put her son, Frank C. Norman, out of the way, in order to 
realize the amount of insurance on his life, in the early months 
of 1890. Her favorite drug was croton oil. Fortunately for 
the young man. Dr. W. E. Hall, the attending physician, inter- 
vened in time to save his life. The gist of Dr. Hall's testi- 
mony, which was direct and pointed, was as follows: 

Norman's symptoms were those arising from croton oil 
poisoning. No disease that he knew of was accompanied by 
the same group of symptoms. The medicines prescribed for 
the patient were cast aside by I\Irs. Vandegrift, who dosed him 
with senna and croton oil. She ,«told the doctor he ate two 
dozen lemons and smoked twenty cigar*^ a day, and that it was 
this that caused his illness. Norman denied the statement. 
Mrs. A^andegrift told the witness that her son's illness was a 
great disadvantage to her, as she was to be married to a Phila- 
delphia gentleman on June ist and go to Europe, but now it 
would have to be postponed. It was about this time Dr. Hall 



FEMALE POISONERS. 497 

discovered that Mrs. Vandegrift was buying croton oil at a 
number of drug stores in Burlington, and he set a trap, he 
said, and caught her. On being accused of administering the 
poison she denied it, but said she had bought some to remove 
her corns. When she was threatened with arrest, she begged 
the doctor not to have her locked up, and consented to allow 
her son to be removed to a hospital. Afterward she withdrew 
her consent and threatened to have Dr. Hall and Dr. Gauntt 
arrested for defamation of character, whereupon the latter 
said with a smile: " Do so, and I will then show that you not 
only tried to kill your son in order to secure the insurance of 
$14,000 on his Hfe, but that you also did kill your husband, 
Joseph Vandegrift, in 1887, by means of croton oil, and he 
told his friends just before his death that he knew you were 
killing him by inches." On hearing this statement, the doctor 
continued, her son left the house, saying he was now satisfied 
that his mother had been trying to murder him ever since he 
returned from Philadelphia. 

THE RISK OF ENLISTING CONNIVANCE. 

Mrs. Mary M. KofYord, of Leadville, CoL, aged 35, con- 
spired with her husband's younger brother, J. G. Kofford, 
sg"^ 59» to insure the life of her husband, Hans, then poison 
him, and, with the proceeds, move to Nebraska and buy a 
farm. Three policies were obtained;, two in co-operatives, 
and one in the Travelers, to the amount of $5,500; $1,000 in 
the Rocky Mountain Insurance and Savings, $2,000 in the 
Great Western Mutual Association, and $2,500 in the Trav- 
elers. The parties were all Danes, and were so ignorant and 
debased that the circumstances lose much of the interest that 
would otherwise attach to the case. Mrs. Kofford approached 
a dentist. Dr. Rose, and made a* confidant of him, announcing 
her purpose, and ofiferiag him a share in the plunder to the 
extent of $300 for an effective poison to be prepared by him. 
Rose lield successive interviews with the woman in order to 
entrap her the more completely, and finally arranged to con- 
ceal witnesses of the transactions between them. Captain C. 
H. Perkins, a detective, and ]\Ir. Jacob Bernheimer, the insur- 



498 FEMALE POISONERS. 

ance agent, were so screened by a partition in Rose's office that 
they could see as well as hear all that was done. The woman 
was allowed to return home with a harmless liquid, and with 
directions for administering the pretended poison. That even- 
ing the guilty pair were arrested and lodged in jail to await 
judicial procedure, and Dr. Rose was credited with excellent 
management of the case as an amateur detective. 

A DEPTFORD CASE. 

On the 17th of July, 1889, at Greenwich Police Court, Eliza- 
beth Frost, aged 30, married, of 155 Church Street, Deptford 
(a borough adjacent to Greenwich on the Surrey side of the 
Thames), was charged as an accomplice of her mother, Mrs. 
Winters, with the wilful murder of Eliza Frost, between Feb- 
ruary 1st and 8th, 1888; of WiUiam Sutton, between December 
4th and 8th, 1888; and of Sydney Bolton, about February, 
1889, by poisoning. Mr. Angus Lewis prosecuted for the 
Treasury, and after briefly reciting the facts of the case, he 
informed the magistrate of the death of Mrs. Winters, and said 
it would now be necessary to proceed with the charge against 
the prisoner alone. In addition to the three charges of mur- 
der, there would be a further charge of attempted murder of 
Mary Ann Bolton, a little girl, sister of Sydney Bolton. He 
pointed out that in each case the deceased person was nursed 
by Mrs. Winters and the prisoner, and the symptoms were 
always the same. Mr. Lewis said that on the previous night 
they were informed that Mrs. Winters, before she died, made 
a very important statement, and it was desirable to have an 
opportunity to inquire into the truth of that statement. He 
therefore asked the magistrate now to further remand the 
accused, to which request Mr. Kennedy acceded. Mrs. Frost 
was brought up on remand, when, in view of the confession 
made by Mrs. Winters, the charges of murder were withdrawn 
and one of forging receipts, etc., to obtain insurance money, 
substituted. 

Before the death of Mrs. Winters, her conduct had awakened 
suspicion. As an example of the circumstances which led to 
distrust, it may be mentioned that after the death of Sydney 



FEMALE POISONERS. 499 

Bolton his father was satisfied with the assurance given him 
by Mrs. Winters to the effect that she had failed to keep up 
the premiums with respect to the boy. But some time after- 
wards the father was shown an advertisement circular of the 
Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly Society, and among the 
names of persons in respect of whose deaths the society had 
paid claims was that of Sydney Bolton. Inquiries were made 
and the result was disclosure of a systematic series of poison- 
ings. It was also learned that Mrs. Frost signed her name at 
the insurance office as Bolton, and represented herself as the 
mother of the dead boy when the claim for payment was 
made. 

When Mrs. Winters found that her end was approaching, 
she made full confession of her guilt in the presence of her 
husband and one of her daughters. She said she could not 
imagine what induced her to commit the crimes, as she had 
never been short of money. She further declared that her 
daughter, Elizabeth Frost, who was then under remand on the 
charges of murder, was entirely innocent, knowing nothing 
of the conduct which her mother was pursuing. Her own 
death was attended with suspicious circumstances. Although 
the coroner considered an inquest unnecessary, there was rea- 
son to believe, as Dr. Macnaughton said, that she was either 
" quietly done away with, or she may have committed suicide 
by poisoning with arsenic, or white precipitate." 

Dr. Macnaughton was the physician who gave certificates 
of death in the cases of the three persons whose bodies were 
subsequently exhumed, and who was censured for carelessness 
by the coroner's jury. In reply he made the following state- 
ment: 

" I ask in the name of common-sense, on what grounds was I to 
withhold certificates? The following is a plain statement of the facts 
of the case: On February 3d, 1888, I was called in to see Eliza Frost. 
She presented symptoms which might have been due to a variety of 
causes. She had the appearance of a woman addicted to drink. Mrs. 
Winters and Mrs. Frost were always present while I was examining 
the patient. If they are guilty of the crime alleged against them, was 
I likely to obtain a true account from these people? I was totally 
deceived, and every circumstance which might have aroused sus- 
picion in my mind was carefully concealed from my knowledge. If, 



500 FEMALE POISONERS. 

as Mrs. E. Delemain said at the inquest, the beef-tea, etc., disagreed 
with the patient, why did she not inform me? Surely I was the proper 
person to be told of these suspicious circumstances. But she with- 
held from me, either through ignorance or gross carelessness, this 
information of vital importance, a knowledge of which on my part 
might have been the means of saving her mother's life; and now she 
tries to pose before the Deptford public as an ill-used woman. If the 
symptoms of arsenical poisoning ought to have been apparent to 
me on February 3d, 1888, ought they not to have been equally so 
to Dr. Hingston on the 7th? As regards the next case, that of the 
girl Mary Ann Bolton, I have simply to say that the reason of my 
objecting to her removal to the hospital was that she was rapidly 
getting better, and that I considered a convalescent home much more 
suitable for her. William Sutton, whom I next attended, was in 
similar hands, and deception, as usual, the rule of procedure. The 
same may be said with regard to Sydney Bolton. Disturbed at all 
hours of the night, and met with deceit and lies, it was simply impos- 
sible to arrive at an accurate judgment in the case. The death of 
Mrs. Winters herself was as mysterious as any of the others, and 3^et 
no inquiry seems to be thought necessary. Her symptoms from time 
to time were certainly as suspicious as in the other cases ; and why 
the authorities have accepted a death certificate from a doctor who 
only saw the case twice, and who must have judged considerably 
from hearsay, passes comprehension, particularly so when it is remem- 
bered that a diversity of opinion existed amongst the several medical 
men who attended Mrs. Winters, as to the real nature of her com- 
plaint." 

The reference of Dr. Macnaughton to " white precipitate " 
was derived from the confession of i\Irs. Winters, in which she 
stated that she had used it in the murderous work through 
which she had defrauded the Prudential Office. It seems 
likely that she confounded the term white precipitate with 
either arsenic or corrosive sublimate. The form of mercury 
almost universally administered with homicidal or suicidal 
intent is the bichloride (corrosive sublimate), while ^v^lite pre- 
cipitate (ammoniated mercur}^ ammonio-chloride of mercury) 
is so far down in the list of mercurial salts, and is resorted to 
for criminal purposes with such extreme infrequency, that it 
receives little more than a passing notice from the authorities 
on toxicolog}^ and medical jurisprudence. In medicine it is 
not used internally, and is only employed externally in the way 
of inunction. When taken internally, by mistake or design, 
it acts as a powerful poison, but it is so Httle known that it 



FEMALE POISONERS. 501 

would be a matter of curious interest to learn how an ignorant 
woman like Mrs. Winters could have been led to use it. Of 
course, its presence is as readily detected by chemical analysis 
as that of any other mercurial preparation. 

THE LIVERPOOL SISTERS. 

On the 1 6th of February, 1884, two sisters in Liverpool, 
Eng., Mrs. Catherine Flannagan, aged 54, and Mrs. Margaret 
Higgins, aged 44, were tried on four indictments for murder 
— first, with murdering Thomas Higgins, the husband of the 
prisoner Higgins, on the 26. of October, 1883; secondly, with 
murdering Margaret Jennings, who lodged with her father 
at the house of Flannagan, on the 25th of January, 1883; and 
thirdly, with murdering John Flannagan, the son of the pris- 
oner Flannagan, on the 7th of December, 1880. The fourth 
indictment charged the prisoner Higgins alone with murdering 
Mary Higgins, the daughter of Thomas Higgins by his first 
wife. The prosecution elected to proceed on the first indict- 
ment. 

Mrs. Flannagan was a money-lender in a small way, and was 
in the habit of taking for her security creditors' policies in 
industrial insurance companies. As an outcome of this prac- 
tice she acquired a taste for speculative insurance on the lives 
of parties who were under no pecuniary obligations to her. 
As there had been a certain amount of justification for her 
earlier transactions, the friendly societies and industrial com- 
panies to which she had recourse appear to have become less 
guarded in their dealings, and less exacting in their inquiries 
as to the character and extent of her interest. Fault was 
found with them for not only insuring the life of Higgins for 
a total amount out of all proportion to his means and his posi- 
tion in a low and depraved class, but for insuring him without 
his knowledge. Fie had been accepted by the Victoria Legal, 
the Royal Liver, the Wesleyan Club, the Scottish Legal, the 
Prudential, the British Workman's, and some others, for sums 
ranging from £25 to £40 each. 

There was reason to believe that Mrs. Flannagan had killed 
at least six people, among them her husband. She was 



502 FEMALE POISONERS. 

accused of poisoning the latter, but she brought suit for slan- 
der, and was awarded £5 damages. In Higgins's case, how- 
ever, the circumstances led the way for such well-grounded 
suspicion that the coroner ordered the funeral to be stopped 
and a post-mortem examination to be made. Hence the 
detection of the arsenical poisoning, and the discovery of evi- 
dence which led to conviction. The jury returned with the 
verdict of guilty after an absence of three-quarters of an hour, 
and upon its announcement Mr. Justice Butt, in passing sen- 
tence, said: 

After a most patient and careful inquiry, you have been found 
guilty of the crime of wilful murder. Everything that ability could 
do has been done in your defense by those who kindly undertook it. 
The evidence is such as to leave no doubt in the minds of those who 
heard it that you were guilty of the crime. The relation the murdered 
man bore to you, to say nothing of others whose deaths it has been 
suggested you have caused, makes the murder so horrible, and it has 
been carried out so cruelly, so relentlessly, and from motives so 
sordid, that it makes one shudder to think of the depth to which 
our common humanity is capable of sinking. Wicked, cruel, and base 
as you are, I do not forget that you are still human. One thing you 
have in common with us all, and that is the hope of an existence 
hereafter. It is the only hope left to you now. I trust that hope will 
be some alleviation of your suffering during the very short time that 
you have to live. For the crime you have committed you must die, 
and it only remains for me to pass on you the sentence of the law. 

His lordship then passed sentence of death in the usual 
manner and form. 

THE TOPMOST ON THE LIST. 

The pre-eminence or championship appears to have been 
attained by a married woman named Van der Linden, in the 
old historic town, Leyden, in Holland. In the latter part of 
1883 she was arrested on a charge of having murdered sixteen 
persons within a few years, nearly all of her victims being 
members of her own family, including five of her children. 
She had their lives insured for her benefit, and received th( 
amount of the policies after their deaths. She confessed he; 
guilt, but her story was so incredible in the boundless wicked- 
ness it revealed, that most persons were inclined to reject it in 



FEMALE POISONERS. 503 

its full extent, even on the assumption of homicidal mania. If 
little more than half of the statements were true, she capped 
the climax of female poisoning. 

It is noteworthy, by the way, that nearly all of the famous 
poisoners of history have been women, — Locusta, Lucretia 
Borgia, Spara, and Tofana in Italy, Brinvilliers, Lavoisin, 
Lavigoreux, and Catherine de Medici in France, and the 
Countess of Somerset in England, who attained in their day 
an infamous notoriety. But the victims of these assassins 
were husbands inconveniently in the way of lovers, or mem- 
bers of royal or noble families who blocked the path of pro- 
motion to persons ambitious to usurp their places. Such 
murders were instigated by intrigues, and treacheries, and 
political complications. A motive so sordid as that of robbing 
an insurance company was as undreamed of in those earlier 
days as was the system of insurance itself. Madame Brin- 
villiers put her father and brothers out of the way, but there 
were family complications and romantic intrigues which re- 
relieved her poisoning of vulgar and brutish coarseness. 
Tofana, when subjected to the torture, confessed having sup- 
plied her arsenical and antimonial solution in six hundred 
cases of murder, but she never was accused of slaughtering 
her own children for pecuniary gain. 

In the chamber of the Froschthurm, of the old city wall of 
Nuremberg, among the strange instruments of torture and 
death which have been preserved, is the iron virgin (eiserne 
jungfrau). It is a female figure about seven feet in height, 
which opens and shuts with springs, and while embracing the 
condemned who is thrust into its arms, pierces him with knives 
and daggers, and then releases and drops him into the dead 
vaults below. Once, during a visit, as the writer examined the 
workings of this curious contrivance, which forms the crown- 
ing feature of the diabolical contents of the museum, he won- 
dered and shuddered at the barbarism of mediaeval days, but 
in reviewing the atrocities of such a devil incarnate as Van 
der Linden the wonder and the shudder fade away before this 
appalling exhibition of latter-day satanism. 



504 SUICIDE. 



SUICIDE. 

In further illustration of the varied forms of fraudulent intent 
under consideration, we have now to remind our readers that 
the annals of criminal jurisprudence prove that desperate men 
sometimes have recourse to suicide. The game of life turns 
against them until they become reckless of their own fate, and 
only solicitous of worldly provision for their immediate kin- 
dred. The Yorkshire squire, of whom Mr. Francis gives such 
a graphic account, destroyed his life to dupe the gamesters 
who had ruined him, and who had, besides, heavily insured him 
to cover the losses otherwise unprovided for. To complete the 
revenge by the forfeiture of the policies, the companies were 
properly notified. But such a motive is altogether exceptional. 
The invariable purpose in self-murder is to die, not that others 
may lose, but that others may win. The class of suicides of 
which the present chapter furnishes some notable instances, 
having no further interest in individual existence, exhibit both 
willingness and eagerness to impose upon the companies the 
burden of the support of those they leave behind. They adopt 
every available method of concealment of purpose, but at the 
same time they know full well, that though in the application of 
circumstantial evidence to the proof of criminal responsibility 
the motive may be detected, their heirs will obtain the sympathy 
of impressible but unreasoning juries, and profit by the fraud. 

Of late years this subject has engag«3d the attention of 
some of the ablest underwriters of the country. " Suicide has 
become so common," says President Batterson, " that hardly a 
day passes in which we cannot find the melancholy fact re- 
ported in some of the papers, as an item of news, accompanied 
by the cheerful intelligence that the deceased had left his family 
well provided with policies of life insurance. Concerning the 
fact that the suicide can obtain for himself no pecuniary or 
other advantage by hastening his own death, it becomes most 



SUICIDE. 505 

important to consider the motives which induce him to commit 
the deed. When misfortunes and trouble, either present or 
prospective, have rendered the cares of life heavy and weari- 
some, suicide is the first remedy suggested by a weak and 
cowardly mind. The hope of escaping personal responsibility, 
^r some impending pecuniary disaster, or the penalty of lesser 
crimes, and at the same time of making provision for those 
who would be destitute and dependent upon him, are the most 
powerful motives to self-destruction. The most convenient 
means of satisfying the motive, and one always at hand, is 
found in a policy of life insurance. 

" The wrong done both to the insurers -^nd insured is trifling 
in comparison with the greater wrong to society, and its effect 
upon public morals. The insurance of hfe in such cases is no 
compensation or endowment given upon the loss of it, but a 
positive temptation to throw it away. It breaks down utterly 
the one chief argument of self-conservation, viz. : the argument 
of family want and protection; turning it directly round to 
make it an argument of self-destruction for the family benefit. 
It loosens, in this manner, too, the bonds of reason just now 
reeling, it may be, off its throne, making desperation more 
desperate, distraction more distracted, bad impulse wider and 
more uncontrollable, and vice itself a more overmastering tor- 
ment. And then, when court-triers come after, practicing their 
loose trivialities in the name of justice, and covering over the 
tremendous fraud of self-murder by figments of insanity, too 
thin to be more than lying pretexts, any one can see that the 
sanctity of life must be giving way with frightful rapidity. The 
only remedy is in removing the motive; and we firmly believe 
that if some legislative power could prevent the writing of any 
life policy which recognizes suicide as a legitimate claim upon 
the insurers, it would very soon cease to be regarded as a 
respectable or desirable method of providing for one's family." 

The various expedients resorted to by suicides, to accom- 
plish their purpose, show in an interesting manner with what 
consummate skill they not only measure the effects of life- 
destroying materials, but so destroy them as to furnish evi- 
dence of insanity in some cases, of accident or of homicide 
in others; and in nearly all can be found some carcfullv devised 



506 SUICIDE. 

plan for concealing the evidence whicii would prove the inten- 
tion and betray the motive. 

A PENNSYLVANIA FELO DE SE. 

One of the earliest cases of deliberate suicide in the United 
States, for the evident purpose of defrauding a life insurance 
company, is that of William Callender, of York, Pennsylvania. 

Callender rode on horseback to Harrisburg, where, on the 
26th of March, 1851, he obtained a policy of insurance on his 
life in the sum of $5,000, from the Keystone Mutual Life and 
Health Insurance Company of Harrisburg. He started home 
the same afternoon, was taken sick on the way and obliged 
to dismount from his horse at a toll-house on the turnpike, 
where he died during the ensuing night. 

The policy was conditioned to be void if " the assured died 
by his own hand," and the company, being in possession of 
proof that Callender died from the self-administration of arsenic, 
with the deliberate purpose of terminating his existence while 
in full possession of his mental faculties, declined to make 
payment. 

The administrator of Callender's estate having brought suit, 
it was proved by the defendant that, at 8 o'clock on the morning 
of the 26th, Callender purchased arsenic at the drug store of 
one Martin Lutz; that, after effecting the insurance, he went to 
a restaurant, called for oysters, and after sprinkling the arsenic 
over the oysters, ate them ; that the arsenic was detected in the 
stomach by post-movtem chemical analysis; and, moreover, it 
was in evidence that Callender had made declarations of an 
intention to commit suicide. 

One of the prominent points in the defense was that at the 
time of applying for insurance the applicant was guilty of mis- 
representation in matters material to the risk. He stated, for 
instance, that he was a farmer by occupation, whereas it way, 
shown on the trial that he had not been a farmer for man , 
years, but was habitually and diligently engaged in a business 
perilous to life, that of catching fugitive slaves. It was proved 
that he lately had been to Wilkesbarre and other places in 
pursuit of negroes, and that only a few days before his death 



SUICIDE. 507 

he had been in Hagerstown, Maryland, to bargain for the 
apprehension of fugitives. 

But proofs of misrepresentation were hardly needed to 
strengthen the defendant's cause. The ruling of the court, 
that suicide, according to the expressed terms and conditions 
of the policy, avoided the contract, was all-sufhcient, and the 
company was sustained accordingly. Upon appeal, the deci- 
sion of the lower court was affirmed, and the Supreme Court 
added that the court below was " very plainly right, in charg- 
ing that if no such condition had been inserted in the pohcy, 
a man who commits suicide is guilty of such a fraud upon the 
insurers of his life that his representatives cannot recover for 
that reason alone." 

COLVOCORESSES. 

It is seldom that the public mind sustains so severe a shock 
as it did upon the announcement of what appeared to have been 
a brutal murder of Captain Colvocoresses, a distinguished 
retired officer of the United States Navy, who was discovered 
in a dying condition, in an unfrequented street in the city of 
Bridgeport, Connecticut, at a late hour of the night of June 3d, 
1872. The newspapers of the day were filled with sensational 
details of the occurrence, and every rumor touching the tragic 
event quickly found its way into print. After a lapse of sev- 
eral years, we may now view the facts and circumstances 
attendant upon this remarkable case with freedom from the 
prejudice which necessarily obscured them at the time of their 
occurrence. At all events, in this recital of incidents and facts 
we shall confine ourselves to the narration of such only as are 
believed to be true. 

Closely intertwined with the history of this event are certain 
facts connected with heavy insurances which had previously 
been effected upon Captain Colvocoresses' life. It was, osten- 
sibly, to meet the agent who had placed this insurance, that he 
was en route for New York at the time of his mysterious death. 
Therefore, in order to make this account wholly clear, it will be 
necessary to advert briefly to the particulars of this insurance. 

It appears that Captain Colvocoresses called at the office of 
the Commonwealth Life Insurance Comoanv in New York 



508 SUICIDE. 

city, on the 23d day of December, 1871, saying that he desired 
to place a considerable amount of insurance upon his life, and 
requested an introduction to some of the other Hfe companies. 
He was taken to the office of the North America Life and the 
Connecticut Mutual, where he underwent the usual medical 
examinations. On the evening of the same day he left the city 
for his home in Litchfield, Connecticut. 

A few days later, an agent of the Commonwealth Company 
went to Litchfield for the purpose of conferring with Captain 
Colvocoresses about placing the remainder of his insurance, 
and held an interview with him upon that subject, on the morn- 
ing of December 27th. In reply to a question as to his object 
in obtaining so large an amount — for he had said he proposed 
to insure very much more than $50,000 — the Captain replied 
that he had to go to Washington to attend to a suit against the 
navy department for more prize money, and as he might lose 
the suit and the money it would cost him to prosecute it, he 
had determined to place as much insurance upon his life as was 
the amount he was contesting for. He said he did not desire 
to have the insurance take effect before the 15th of January. 
He appeared to be distrustful of the agent because he was a 
New York man, and said that he had been swindled out of 
nearly all his prize money through the investments he had 
made with brokers there; and he named Utley and Dougherty 
in connection with transactions in Rochester water bonds. 
Upon being assured that his premiums could be paid directly 
to the companies, he became satisfied upon that point, and 
then entered upon partial negotiations with the agent to place 
the insurance for him. He named some of the companies with 
which he had already conferred, and others which he proposed 
to patronize. '' I want all the premiums," he said, " to be 
semi-annual, as my ready funds will not permit my paying them 
annually." The companies and amounts he mentioned at this 
time were: New England Mutual, $10,000; Northwestern 
Mutual, $10,000; John Hancock, $5,000; National (Vermont), 
$5,000; Commonwealth, $5,000. The agent arranged to for- 
ward the applications by mail to Captain Colvocoresses, who 
stipulated that they should be in duplicate, in order that he 
might reserve a copy of each application, saying that if any 



SUICIDE. 509 

trouble should arise, in the event of his death, he wanted 
copies to be in the hands of his heirs. 

The applications were sent as agreed, and about the 13th or 
14th of January the Captain went to New York, having with 
him the applications all filled out. He said that he desired 
more insurance, and mentioned these companies with the 
amounts he wished: Mutual Life, $10,000; Mutual Benefit, 
$10,000; Equitable, $10,000; North America, $10,000; Con- 
necticut Mutual, $10,000; Manhattan, $2,500; New York Life, 
$3,500; State Mutual, $5,000; Atlantic Mutual, $5,000; and 
added that he would want still more. The agent had agreed 
with him to deduct ten per cent, of the premiums, and on that 
point says: ''It was new in my experience to have a man 
insure so easily, for I did not talk insurance with him at all. 
My conviction at the time was, that what induced him to insure 
so heavily through me was simply the fact that he could save 
ten per cent, of the premiums." 

Subsequently the agent found some discrepancy in the medi- 
cal examination, and he at once started for Litchfield to see Dr. 
Gates, the examiner there, who evidently had made an error in 
the chest expansion. On reaching the Twenty-seventh Street 
depot of the New York and New Haven Railroad he unex- 
pectedly met the Captain, to whom he explained the object of 
his journey, and the two took the 3 P. M. train for Litchfield, 
riding in the cars together. The Captain had with him, at 
this time, a sword-cane which he took pains to exhibit, and 
said that he purchased it because he thought he ought to 
have something of the kind in case he got into trouble, so he 
could defend himself. He also had with him a russet-leather 
valise, which he kept by him. An incident occurred en route 
which impressed the agent with the idea that Captain Colvoco- 
resses was a frugal, close, and exact man. At Stamford a 
lunch was taken, and as the agent could not make the exact 
change, he obtained three cents of the Captain, who, before 
they arrived at Litchfield, asked him for it. 

The correction was made in the physician's certificate of ex- 
amination, and the agent again returned to New York, where 
he placed the insurance through the several ag-cncies. On 
going to the office of the New York Life, Mr. Adams, the 



510 SUICIDE. 

policy clerk, refused to receive the application, saying he 
then had on file an application recently made by Captain Col- 
vocoresses. '' In conversation with Mr. Adams," says the agent, 
" I said that the Captain desired me to do all his business 
with the insurance companies, and that I was placing a large 
amount upon his life — over $100,000. Mr. Adams, with some 
warmth, replied, 'He can't be in earnest; he is a poor man; 
he is a fraud,' and added, ' You wait a moment.' Then he 
called a gentleman standing near and said, ' Do you remember 
that old naval officer who has been here three or four times 
and made application for insurance?' The gentleman an- 
swered, ' Yes.' ' Well,' said Mr. Adams, ' what do you think 
of his applying for $100,000 insurance?' 'I don't believe he 
will take it,' said he, * he is a fraud.' Mr. Adams continued, 
' Why, he wanted to go to work for us as an agent last fall ; I 
tell you he is a fraud.' " At the time of effecting this insur- 
ance in the several companies, as applied for, the Captain had 
poHcies in the New York Life of $6,500; the Phoenix Mutual 
Life, $10,000; and in the Manhattan, $2,500. 

Subsequently the policies were taken to Litchfield by the 
agent and delivered to the Captain, who gave his check for the 
amount upon the Union Trust Company of New York. The 
next day the agent presented the check to the Trust Company's 
office, when he was told by the bank officers that the Captain 
had telegraphed them, stopping payment. In a subsequent 
telegram the Captain countermanded his order, with the expla- 
nation that he supposed he had discovered an error, but was 
mistaken. In March he wrote the agent to have a policy of 
$8,000 placed in the army and navy branch of the St. Louis 
Mutual. This was obtained for him, and he sent his check 
in payment of premium. 

The Captain called again at the agent's office in New York, 
on the 30th day of April, and said that his suit at Washington 
demanded his presence there, and that he also thought of ex- 
tending his trip to Port Royal. On being told that he could go 
without detriment to his policies, he said, " I also want an 
accident policy, but before I have one I want to know about 
this Savage case which the accident company is contesting at 
New Haven." The agent replied that he was not familiar 



SUICIDE. 611 

with the facts in that case, but he thought the company un- 
doubtedly had good grounds for its defense. The Captain 
expressed a desire to know what those grounds were, and at 
his request the agent took him to the New York office of the 
Travelers Insurance Company, where the object of their call 
was made known to the Travelers agent. It was explained 
to the Captain that Mr. Savage was at first reported to have 
been robbed and murdered, but upon investigation it was 
believed that the wounds were self-inflicted, and the company 
resisted upon those grounds. The general facts and features 
of the case were discussed with the Captain more or less in 
detail. Upon leaving the Travelers ofBce, he remarked to the 
agent who had taken him there: "Well, all that is necessary 
for the Savage heirs to establish is murder, and they will get 
the money; hit does not the company have to establish suicide f 
" And," he added, " If Savage was going to kill himself, why 
didn't he do it right out, and not linger? " He concluded that 
he would take $10,000 accident insurance, but would not take 
it then. He, however, decided to increase his insurance in the 
Northwestern Mutual, by taking $10,000 additional in that 
company. 

While with him on this occasion, the agent held a conversa- 
tion of interest, substantially as follows: The agent said, " Why 
haven't you been in on Erie? It has been going up, and almost 
everybody with ready money, as I suppose you have, would 
have made money." The Captain smiled and answered, " Well, 
I have been in. Some time ago, a friend of mine said Erie 
was a good investment at nineteen, as it was then selling. I 
bought four hundred shares at that figure. Last Thursday I 
telegraphed my broker to sell, and he did, at sixty-five." The 
agent inquired who the broker was, and the Captain said, 
'' Dougherty; he has held the shares ever since I bought them. 
If you will look at Thursday's sales, you will see the sale; in 
one lot, four hundred at sixty-five." As the agent had the 
stock reports at hand in his office, he turned to the report of 
Thursday's sales, and was unable to find it reported. The Cap- 
tain then suggested Wednesday, but it did not appear among 
the sales of that day. It could not be found at all. under any 
day's sale, and the Captain appeared to the agent somewhat 



512 SUICIDE. 

confused in consequence. " Anyway," he remarked, " I got 
$18,400 out of it, and Dougherty gave me United States bonds 
for the amount." The agent then asked why he continued to 
deal with Dougherty, after having been swindled by him. The 
Captain turned away, saying they had " made it up." 

On his return home the Captain wrote to the agent for 
$5,000 additional insurance, the premiums to be paid quarterly. 
It was obtained for him as requested. The total insurance 
written upon his life at this time was as follows: 

New England Mutual $16,000 

Northwestern (Milwaukee) 20,000 

Mutual Life (New York) 10,000 

Equitable 10,000 

North America 10,000 

New York Life 10,000 

Commonwealth 10,000 

Connecticut Mutual 25,000 

Phcenix Mutual 20,000 

Travelers (accident) 10,000 

Mutual Benefit 10,000 

National of U. S « 10,000 

John Hancock 5,ooo 

Berkshire 5,ooo 

State Mutual 5,000 

St. Louis Mutual 8,000 

National (Vermont) 5,000 

Atlantic Mutual , 5,000 

Manhattan 5,000 

Charter Oak 2,500 

Total $195,500 

Captain Colvocoresses made an appointment with the insur- 
ance broker to meet him at the Astor House, in New York, on 
the 30th day of May. For the purpose of keeping this appoint- 
ment, as he stated, the Captain left his home in Litchfield, on 
Wednesday, May 29th, taking with him a russet-leather valise, 
a small black morocco satchel, an umbrella, and a bamboo 
sword-cane. Arriving in Bridgeport, he went directly to the 
Atlantic Hotel, and there took supper. His movements that 
afternoon and evening are not fully known; but at one time 
during the evening he is known to have been on board the 
steamboat which was to sail at eleven o'clock that night, for 



SUICIDE. 513 

New York. He purchased a passage ticket, but afterwards 
concluded not to go, and so stated his mind to the clerk of the 
boat, who refunded him his money. He returned to the At- 
lantic Hotel, where he remained that night. The next day he 
telegraphed from Bridgeport to the agent that he was delayed, 
and made another appointment for the following day, Friday, 
the 31st, at eleven A. M. He appears to have remained in 
Bridgeport during the day, but his movements are not defi- 
nitely known. That evening he was seen on board the New 
York boat, and he was on the wharf when she sailed. From 
the wharf he went to the Sterling House, accompanied by a 
policeman, reaching the hotel about midnight. The policeman 
found him about the steamboat landing, three-quarters of an 
hour after the boat had left The officer told him it was time 
to go to bed. The Captain inquired where there was a good 
hotel. (He knew the hotels in Bridgeport perfectly well, hav- 
ing often been to both the principal ones.) The house was 
locked up, but the proprietor was aroused and let the Captain 
in. He was immediately shown to a room, but it is known 
that he did not at once retire, as he zvas heard pacing the room 
an hour or more. He also opened the window, and several 
times threw out water, as if emptying his wash-bowl. The next 
morning he again telegraphed the agent that he was further 
detained, but would go at once to New York by rail, and 
would call at the agent's ofiice upon his arrival. At about 
three o'clock that afternoon he put in an appearance at the 
agent's office, saying that he had been over to the Navy Yard 
and drawn his pay, and had been to the office of the Manhattan 
Life, where he had paid an insurance premium. He told the 
agent he would leave Litchfield the next Monday afternoon, 
and be in New York again Tuesday morning. He returned 
to Bridgeport, reaching the Sterling House the same evening, 
where he remained over night. The following morning, Satur- 
day, June 1st, he went back to Litchfield, and remained at 
home over Sunday. 

On Monday afternoon he left home for Bridgeport, by the 
Shepaug Valley Railroad. His wife is reported to have said 
that he left his watch at home, and that he only took two or 
three dollars more than enough to pay his fare to New York: 



514 SUICIDE. 

that she expostulated with him for taking so small a sum, and 
he said he could get what he wanted when he reached New 
York. When he left Litchfield he had with him his sword- 
cane and umbrella, the russet-leather valise, and no other bag- 
gage. This valise he sent in the baggage-car, under check, to 
Bridgeport. Arriving in . Bridgeport he went directly aboard 
the steamer, purchased a passage ticket and secured a state- 
room. He deposited the valise in his state-room, but brought 
out with him, on leaving the room, a small black morocco travel- 
ing satchel, his sword-cane, and umbrella. He was next seen 
at the Sterling House with the articles described, at about 9.15 
P. M. Having asked for supper and found it too late to be 
served, he went to a neighboring restaurant, where he obtained 
supper, keeping his satchel in his lap while eating. To all 
appearances he was extremely solicitous as to the safety of 
this satchel, both at the restaurant and at the hotel. The same 
fact was observed at the time of his previous stop in Bridge- 
port, the week before, when he had the srme satchel with him. 
His conduct attracted the attention of the hotel waiters. At 
the table he placed the satchel in a chair, evidently handling it 
with great care, and sat in another chair by its side. The head 
waiter objected to his occupation of two seats. The Captain 
replied that he would have two or none, and he was permitted 
to Indulge what was then thought to be a mere caprice. 

From the restaurant he went to an ice-cream saloon, and 
thence back to the Sterling House. After talking a few mo- 
ments in front of the hotel with the proprietor, he asked the 
way to the steamboat, and the proper direction being pointed 
out, he started of¥ as directed. After going a block and a 
half he stopped at Wheeler's drug store, where he purchased 
two sheets of writing-paper and two envelopes, saying that he 
wanted one envelope larger than the other, as he wished to 
enclose the smaller. Having procured these articles, he re- 
quested to be directed to the boat, and the druggist, stepping 
out upon the sidewalk with him, pointed out the way, and 
remarked that It was then precisely half-past ten o'clock. 

This Is the last positively known of his whereabouts during 
his life, a time half an hour prior to the report of a pistol, 
and a distance of four minutes' moderate walking to the spot 



SUICIDE. 515 

where his dead body was found. From Wheeler's drug store 
to the boat is eight minutes' easy walking. The boat's time 
of departure was eleven o'clock, and that night it started 
promptly on time. Just as the boat was putting off, the report 
of a pistol-shot arrested the attention of police officer Bailey, 
who at once ran to the spot whence the sound proceeded, and 
found Captain Colvocoresses lying upon the sidewalk in a 
dying condition. His shirt, immediately about the wound, 
was on fire, the light from which served as a guide to the spot 
where the body lay. He was lying upon his back, with his 
left hand pressed to the wound in the corresponding breast; 
his right arm and hand extended palm upward, and fingers half- 
closed. Diagonally across the street, in the gutter, lay a large, 
old-fashioned, percussion-lock horse-pistol. The stock was 
broken, the detached fragment lying upon the sidewalk some 
two yards on in a line with the pistol and the body. Closer 
inspection showed the fracture in the stock to have been an 
old one, the parts previously broken having been glued to- 
gether, and further secured by tarred twine wrapped around it. 
It was evident that the pistol had just been discharged, and 
the exploded cap remained on the nipple. His sword-cane lay 
at his feet, about two yards distant, towards the gutter, and 
his umbrella parallel with it towards the fence. The sword- 
blade was unsheathed, considerably bent, and bore no stain of 
any kind. The bamboo of the cane was considerably splin- 
tered for a distance of a little more than half the length of the 
sword-blade. Upon the side of the cane, exactly coincident 
with the bend in the blade, was a dent, as though it had been 
grasped at the two extremities and snapped over a fence picket. 
The dead body and the articles found near it were removed to 
the station-house, where an inquest was held. 

The next morning, June 4th, there was found upon the north 
side of the street, some sixty feet distant from where the pistol 
was picked up, a red pill-box containing old-fashioned percus- 
sion caps, which, together with a large bullet of about the cali- 
bre of the one that had passed through the Captain's body, 
were tied up in a cotton rag. The rag was tied by knotting 
opposite comers, in precisely the same manner that a handker- 
chief found in the Captain's valise was tied, enclosing toilet 



516 SUICIDE. 

articles. It was noticed that a picket in the fence, near where 
the Captain fell, was notched by a bullet, and farther on, the 
edge of the steps to the house door was nicked. These marks 
led to the discovery of the bullet which had passed through 
the Captain's body. Subsequently, there was found near where 
the box of caps was picked up, an old, shabby horn powder- 
flask containing powder, the little end tied up with a much 
soiled rag. The finding of this powder-horn has a history of 
its own. It appears that a boy, in passing, saw a bit of rag 
sticking out from under a gutter plank laid lengthwise with the 
curbstone, and pulled it out, carrying it a few steps as he walked 
along. He saw that it was attached to an old powder-horn 
of no value, and threw it down where it was afterwards picked 
up. There can be no doubt that the powder-horn was pushed 
under the plank with a view to its concealment. 

Early the next morning after the tragedy, the black satchel, 
to which allusion has been made, was found on the Naugatuck 
wharf, under or near a railroad car, at a distance of four min- 
utes' easy walking from the spot where the shooting occurred. 
One end of the bag was slit open, apparently with a very dull 
knife, and contained only a blank check-book. Subsequently, 
upon close inspection of the satchel by the Bridgeport chief of 
police, a small quantity of gunpowder was discovered in the 
seams upon the inside. The powder corresponded in appear- 
ance with that in the flask. Indentations upon the inside of 
the satchel were noticed, and it was found by taking the pistol 
and placing it in the bag, in almost the only position by which 
it could be put wholly inside, that a concavity had been pro- 
duced exactly at the point where the large projecting top of 
the hammer precisely fits. This indentation was worn and pol- 
ished as though by long continued rubbing of the lock against 
the side of the bag, and the red morocco lining was found to 
be blackened by the attrition of the rusty weapon. Tlie pistol 
was a large, heavily constructed article of French manufacture, 
with a barrel nearly as capacious as the barrel of an ordinary 
shot-gun. The stock extended nearly to the muzzle. It was 
brass-mounted, with a brass plate extending over .the barrel at 
the breech, with a fleiir dc Us crown and the letters F. M. 
engraved on it. Originally it was a flint-lock, and had been 



SUICIDE. 517 

altered to a cap-lock. The barrel on the inside was quite 
rough, either from the corrosion of time, or owing to the 
roughness of finish. 

While the Captain lay dying upon the sidewalk, it was ob- 
served by the officer who discovered him that his coat and 
vest were unbuttoned, suggesting the idea that they had been 
violently torn open at the hands of an assassin. When the 
body was prepared for inspection and autopsy, the clothing 
worn by the deceased passed into the custody of the chief of 
police. The removal of this clothing was effected in a room 
at the poHce-station, in which were a number of tramps, and 
it is supposed that some one of them stole the pantaloons, as 
unfortunately they were not afterwards to be found. It is be- 
lieved that they were torn in front at the point where the inner 
suspender button was attached, the rent extending downward 
several inches. The suspenders were not taken with the panta- 
loons, and these afiford an indication of the manner in which 
the tearing was done. In one of the button-holes of the sus- 
penders was found fixed a button that was torn or blown off 
from the pantaloons, evidently by the discharge of the pistol, 
as upon the suspender at that place were noticed the marks 
of gunpowder, and the marks, also, of the scorching from the 
fire occasioned by the discharge. The remaining clothing 
consisted of a black broadcloth frock coat and vest of the same 
material ; a navy-blue overcoat of not very stout fabric ; a wool 
undershirt, and a white overshirt with linen bosom. The 
shirts were burned or torn at points corresponding with the 
place where the bullet entered the body, but neither of the 
coats nor the vest Sore any marks of the bullet's entrance. 
Both coats, as well as both shirts, showed rents posteriorly 
where the bullet tore through them in its exit from the body. 
The point of exit was below the vest, so that was wholly un- 
injured. The inside lining upon its left side was found to be 
blackened as though by smoke, and a pretty sharply defined 
line, limiting the discoloration by smoke, would seem to in- 
dicate that the left side of the unbuttoned vest was folded back 
at the time of the shooting. A careful inspection of the but- 
tons and button-holes of the two coats revealed no evidence 
of a violent wrenching open of these garments. The button- 



518 SUICIDE. 

holes had the worn appearance of careful and frequent use. 
The middle button-hole of one of the coats had the stitching 
nearly worn out, so that any sudden strain, with the button in 
place, would have met no resistance except the well-worn edge 
of cloth. This particular button was always worn fastened. 
There was no breaking of even a single thread of the cloth; 
no evidence of a forcible tearing open of the coat by an attack- 
ing party. The closest examination of the garments failed 
to show the slightest proof of any struggle. No part of either 
coats or vest had the appearance of having been subjected to 
any unnatural pulling; not a seam was parted. The shirt was 
much burned at the place where the bullet entered; the burn- 
ing having been caused by the combustion of powder, a fact 
which shows conclusively the immediate proximity of the muz- 
zle at the time. The appearance of the woolen undershirt was 
of even greater significance. At a point corresponding with the 
burnt hole in the shirt was a very large hole in the undershirt. 
The latter was of a material which does not readily burn, and 
the ragged edges of the hole in the undershirt were not even 
scorched, or in the least blackened. The missing pieces were 
violently torn away, by the great force of the explosion, at the 
instant of the discharge. No evidences were discernible, about 
the cravat or collar, that there had been a struggle of any kind. 

In one of the pockets was found a knife having a dull, rag- 
ged edge, apparently having been subjected to rough usage. 
It will be borne in mind that the small leather satchel had been 
cut open with an exceedingly dull knife. On his person were 
found, also, about $2.70 in money, the key to his state-room 
on the steamer, a card upon which was written the Captain's 
full name, and a memorandum book. 

An autopsy was held sixteen hours after death, in which the 
following wounds and appearances were noted: A gunshot 
wound by a bullet ; its point of entrance being six inches below 
the plane of the left nipple and three and one-half inches from 
the median line. Orifice of the wound, five-eighths by three- 
fourths inches; edges inverted, discolored darkly; neighboring 
skin blistered as though by heat. Bullet passed between the 
eighth and ninth ribs of the left side. It produced a longi- 
tudinal slit in the stomach five inches long, and tore through 



SUICIDE. 519 

the body of the fourth lumbar vertebra and the spinal cord, 
making its exit at that point. Close inspection of the surface 
of the body showed absolutely no marks of recent injury other 
than the wounds produced by the bullet. 

In whatever light we may regard the teachings of this posf- 
morteni examination, it will be well to observe, in passing, that 
there were none of the usual evidences of a mortal struggle. 
The shattered and bent sword-cane and the unbuttoned cloth- 
ing naturally would lead to a search for marks of violence upon 
the person, such as are produced by grips, blows, violent exer- 
tions — the characteristic evidences of a rough assault. Not a 
finger-mark, not a scratch was found. Nothing but the fearful 
wound which, in its blistered condition, showed immediate con- 
tact of the weapon at the time of its discharge; and which 
also, in its course, gave evidence of the terrific violence of the 
explosion. There is no reason for the supposition that a man 
like the deceased, who all his days had been accustomed to 
adventures and scenes of personal violence, would have allowed 
an assassin, or any number of them, to hold his clothing open 
and shoot him to death without a desperate struggle; and it 
is in evidence that no such struggle took place. 

One of the most remarkable circumstances about the event 
is that no sounds of a struggle were heard, as there would 
have been, it would seem, if a murder was committed, and 
such a struggle had taken place as to break the cane and bend 
the sword. The testimony of some witnesses on this point 
is very important and interesting. 

A lady directly in front of whose house the tragedy occurred 
makes the following statement: 

On the night of the shooting, at ten o'clock, I went up to my room 
to sew. I sat with a bright light, both shutters open, though the 
windows were closed — the light so placed that it shone clearly into 
the street. I continued sewing till half-past ten, when I undressed 
and sat down at the edge of the bed. At this time I heard a slight 
sound as of a stick hitting inside my closet-door. This sound was 
a very slight one, and more like the breaking of a stick than like 
footsteps. (The reader will bear in mind what has been related with 
reference to the splintered bamboo cane.) It occurred about twenty 
minutes, it seemed to me, before the shooting. On this account I didn't 
put out my light, but stood up, braided my hair, and ripped the skirt off 
a dress. I then changed the position of the light, out of range of the 



520 SUICIDE. 

window, so that it did not shine so plainly on the street. I then 
turned down the light and lay down upon the bed. This was, to the 
best oi my judgment, fifteen minutes before the report. I then heard 
the report of the pistol, and became so confused that for a time I was 
unable to collect my thoughts. Having listened for a little while, I 
covered my head with the bed-clothes. While my head was thus 
covered, listening all the while, I heard three distinct groans. I then 
removed the bed-clothes from my head and heard two more groans. 
These were the only sounds I heard after the report until the people 
arrived at the gate near which the body lay. 

This lady was within a few yards of where the shooting 
occurred, and her attention having been arrested by what 
sounded to her like the breaking of a stick, she was timidly on 
the qui vive for every noise. Had there been a call for help, 
or other sound, at the time, it is certain that she would have 
heard it. 

Another lady, residing in the corner house, at the Main 
Street end of Clinton Street, says : 

I had been in bed about five minutes when I heard a loud report 
of a fire-arm. I jumped out of bed and hastened to the window, 
where I could get a plain view of the street, but saw no one running 
or passing out of the street; nor did I hear any outcry, or sound of 
a struggle, or conversation on Clinton Street, with the exception of 
the groans of a man who proved to be Captain Colvocoresses. I 
could distinctly see the policeman as he turned into Clinton Street 
after the report, but I saw no one pass out either end of the street. 
My room is on the ground floor; the window was open, but the blinds 
closed. I was wide awake when the shot was fired, and was at the 
window in a very few seconds. 

Another lady in the same house corroborates the above 
statement as to occurrences on Clinton Street, saying that she 
" was awake when the shot was fired, and rushed immediately 
to the window." 

The reader will bear in mind that Clinton is a short street, 
and is lighted at each end. The lamps are situated so that 
the women who hurried to the windows, as stated above, could 
see the entire length of the street, and see the poUceman who 
came in at the Water Street end. Unquestionably they com- 
manded a full view of their end of the street, and had any 
murderer attempted to escape in that direction they would have 
seen him; while the policeman would not have failed to notice 



SUICIDE. 521 

any attempt to escape from his end of the street. Again, if a 
murderer threw away the pistol, secreted the powder-horn, 
dropped the box of caps and the other articles which were 
afterwards found, as has been stated, it would seem as though 
he could not have had time to do all this after the shooting, 
without having been seen by these eye-witnesses. 

It becomes a matter of legitimate inquiry to account for the 
time consumed by Captain Colvocoresses after leaving the hotel 
and the drug store for the boat. For him to go through Clin- 
ton Street was, in distance, quite as direct a route as any, but 
not the usual one; and the Captain was quite familiar with the 
way, he having passed frequently over the ground between the 
hotels and boat. He could not have gone directly to the place 
of shooting, for that was but a few minutes' walk, while fully 
twenty-five elapsed before the report of the pistol was heard. 
How is the time consumed to be accounted for? If the tragic 
scene was his own planning and performing, then we find that 
for him to have gone from the drug store to the place where 
the satchel was found, and thence to the spot where the body 
lay, would have consumed about twelve minutes, provided he 
kept walking all the time. But the half-hour that is to be 
accounted for is amply sufficient for a man who was deliberately 
walking and meditating upon the deed, and who, selecting a 
place where the bag should be found, stopped to cut it open, 
after taking out the pistol it contained. He would still have 
time to arrange the requisite details in Clinton Street. 

To show the probable movements of the Captain during this 
time, we have the testimony of a man who was occasionally 
employed on the steamboat, and who left the wharf that night 
at about twenty minutes before nine o'clock. When he had 
gone a short distance he met a stranger, who inquired of him 
as to the way. Subsequently that night he met the stranger 
again, and gives this statement: 

I was passing down Main Street, between Clinton and Union, when 
I saw a man ahead of me going towards Clinton Street. He stepped 
out to the right on the curb, to let me pass. It was so singular an 
action that I looked at him, and he looked at me. I noticed it was 
the same man whom I had seen upon leaving the boat. He had a 
small satchel, which appeared to be hung by a string about his neck, 
and carried a cane and umbrella, and seemed to be arranging some- 



522 SUICIDE. 

thing in his left breast with his right hand. I passed him, turning 
down Clinton Street, he following slowly. I turned about when I 
was part way down the street and saw him passing over and going 
down Main. He appeared to hesitate at the lower corner whether to 
come down Clinton Street or not. When I had been in my house 
about twenty-five minutes I heard a loud report like that of a rifle, 
and soon afterwards recognized the dead man as the one whom I had 
seen twice before that evening. 

Upon opening a box of special deposit, which Captain Col- 
vocoresses kept in the vault of the First National Bank at 
Litchfield, there were found certain memoranda which, at first, 
were supposed to afford a clue to the mystery. It unexpectedly 
appeared that the Captain had been the possessor of a very 
considerable amount of wealth, which he had invested in stocks 
and bonds; and it was conjectured that he had the certificates 
of these bonds within the small satchel which he so watchfully 
guarded while in Bridgeport. The inference was that he had 
been stealthily tracked and followed by persons who knew he 
had these bonds; the bag snatched from him after resistance, 
which resulted in his being shot to death; and the bonds hur- 
riedly abstracted by the murderers and robbers, who left the 
empty satchel where it was afterwards found. 

The following is a transcript of these memoranda, in the 
order of their dates: 

Sept. 7, 1871. 

Ten Central Pacific ist mort. 6% $10,000 

Eight Union Pacific ist mort. 6% 8,000 

Sixteen U. S. Five-twenty's, '^T, Jan. and July 16,000 

Six State of Connecticut 6s 6,000 

Five Danville, Urbana, Pekin & Bloomington R. R 5,000 

Four hundred Erie 40,000 

One hundred and fifty Pacific Mail 15,000 

In a side memorandum the statement is made of Erie bought 
for 19, sold for 65; and several other memoranda relative to 
purchase and sale. The whole list is scratched, altered, and 
interlined. 

Beneath is a statement bearing date of April 4, 1872, which 
is also interlined, altered, and scratched. 



SUICIDE. 523 

10. Central Pacific ist mort. 6^ $lo,ooo 

8. Union Pacific ist mort. 6^^ 8,ooo 

5. Danville, Urbana, Pekin & B. R. R. 5,ooo 

6. Connecticut Sixes 6,ooo 

21. Rochester Water Loan Bonds 21,000 

12. Conn. Valley R. R 12,000 

29. U. S. Five-twenty's, '67.. 29,000 

7. U. S. Five-twenty's, '65 7,000 

10. Shepaug Valley R. R 1,000 

3. Alabama 8s 3,000 

A third, perfected list, reads as follows: 

May 13, 1872. 
The following are the securities which I now hold, and those marked 
with the letter D. I shall, on my arrival in New York, place in the 
Safe Deposit, No. 120 Broadway, Equitable Building, for convenience: 

D. Ten Central Pacific ist mort. 6s $10,000 

D. Eight Union Pacific ist mort. 6s 8,000 

D. Twelve Conn. Valley ist mort. 7s 12,000 

D. Twenty-nine U. S. Gov. 5-20S 29,000 

D. Fifteen U. S. Gov. 5-20S 15,000 

D. Six Conn. Sixes 6,000 

Five Danville, Urbana, P. & B. R. R 5,000 

Ten Shepaug Valley 1,000 

Twenty-one Rochester Water Loan 21,000 

I also hold life insurance to the amount of $193,000, and coupons 
due 1st of May, on U. S. bonds. G. M. C. 

Of these bonds it was learned that the Rochester Water 
Loan, the Shepaug Valley, and the Danville Road were in the 
bank at Litchfield, and were of no value whatever. His box 
at the bank in which he kept his memorandums and papers 
was quite full, and this circumstance suggested the inquiry as 
to where had he kept his other bonds marked " D." A letter 
was received by the Safe Deposit Company in the latter part 
of May, requesting the company to hold a safe at the Captain's 
disposal; but he was in New York one day subsequent to the 
date on which the letter was written, and did not visit the Safe 
Deposit office. It looked somewhat strange that only his 
bonds and papers of little or no value should have been kept 
at the bank. 

It will be observed that the memorandums do not indicate the 
numbers of any of the bonds, though it would seem that a man 



524 SUICIDE. 

who actually held such securities, and was about to deposit 
them with such care as to leave a memorandum at home, 
would be particular about the numbers. Owing to this omis- 
sion it was impossible to trace anything but the twelve Con- 
necticut Valley bonds. They had been issued but a short time, 
and a protracted, thorough and complete search developed the 
fact that Captain Colvocoresses never owned any of these bonds. 
The investigation as to Captain Colvocoresses's ownership of 
the bonds covered a broad field of inquiry, and many important 
facts were gathered. The evidence touching this feature of the 
inquiry was submitted by the insurance companies to Judge 
McCurdy, who tersely epitomizes the facts and expresses his 
views as follows: 

The obtaining such an immense amount of insurance, making so 
small a payment of premium, and dying immediately after, create 
alone a suspicion of fraud. But the suspicion is greatly increased by 
the accompanying circumstances. He, of course, was fully aware 
that, to remove this suspicion, it was necessary that he should appear 
to be possessed of a large property to justify the amount of insurance, 
and to enable him to meet the premiums. It was with this object 
that he seems to have prepared the memorandum of bonds, evidently, 
and indeed ostentatiously, to be exhibited after his death. It will be 
observed that this kind of property is most difficult to be traced — 
bonds having no ear-marks. This list was deliberately prepared and 
revised, with slight changes, three times. It amounted each time to 
about $100,000, and the last two memorandums contain twelve bonds 
of $1,000 each — in all $12,000, of the Connecticut Valley Railroad 
Company. Now, it has been ascertained, beyond all question, from 
the parties who held all the bonds of the company, and have held 
them from their issue, that he could not by any possibility have ever 
held a single bond of this road in his possession. This fact stamps 
the character of falsehood and fraud upon the whole list. There is no 
reason to suppose that he held any of the bonds which he names, 
except those of the Shepaug Road, of no value; the Danville Road, 
and the Rochester Water Bonds, of no value. 

There is no reason to believe that he at any time, except when he 
drew his prize money, was worth more than $10,000, including his 
place at Litchfield. He had no visible means of making money. 
His salary was barely sufificient to support his family. His prize 
money ($17,338) was invested and lost in Rochester Water Bonds. 
The pretense that he made a large sum by an Erie investment is 
proved to have been a sham. His family and friends knew of no 
amount of property. Mr. Holmes, who kept his papers and accounts, 
and must have been acquainted with his circumstances, says he never 



SUICIDE. 525 

was worth more than $8,000 or $10,000. He borrowed small sums 
from time to time of the Litchfield Bank — apparently to support his 
family — and repaid them when his salary became due. When he 
attempted to borrow a large sum he had no collaterals to offer as 
security, except the worthless Water Bonds; and he died in debt to the 
Litchfield Bank without a sufficient security. He kept no known 
deposits or accounts with banks or brokers. His business was prin- 
cipally done through Messrs. Cisco & Co., and the transactions 
(except in one instance, amounting to $4,000) were very small, run- 
ning from $300 to $1,000. His sworn assessment list shows less than 
$400. If he had bonds to the amount of $100,000, where did he buy 
them? Where did he get the money to pay for them? How long 
had he held them? Where did he keep them, and why not continue 
to keep them as before? Where did he cash his coupons? At the 
instance of his family, the President of the Board of Brokers publicly 
requested that any persons who had furnished him any bonds, or 
assisted him in any bond exchanges or negotiations, should make it 
known; but there was no response. The most skilful detectives have 
been unable to discover any such transactions. The whole pretense 
is a manifest and palpable falsehood. 

Assuming it, therefore, as a fact beyond all question, that he was 
not, at the time of his death, worth more than $10,000, it follows that 
he could not have taken out insurance to the amount of $200,000 
in good faith and for an hoitest purpose. His first premiums, amount- 
ing to nearly $11,000, would have absorbed all his means, including 
his house, and if he had lived to the age he had a right to expect, 
the aggregate of his premiums would have reached the neighborhood 
of $150,000, exclusive of interest. 

He was evidently aware that his taking such an unusual amount of 
insurance would be a source of suspicion, and so he gave as a reason 
for it that he had a suit pending at Washington against the Govern- 
ment, involving about the same amount, and as he might lose that, he 
wished to secure himself in this sum. Now he had, in fact, no suit 
for any sum at all; he had only applied to the proper department to 
make an abatement of the assessment (about $1,700) on his prize 
money, which was refused. 

On the morning of his departure from Litchfield to proceed 
upon the last journey he was to take, as reported by his own 
family, he betrayed more than ordinary emotion, and gave 
evidence of a depth of feeling quite unusual. Three times did 
he return to bid them adieu, and the third repetition of his 
fond farewell called forth the remark, " Why, one would think 
you expect never to return!'' He was strongly attached to his 
family, and his domestic relations were those of an affectionate 
and happy household. This fact has been published as tending 



526 SUICIDE. 

to discredit the theory of suicide, and it has been alleged, also, 
that there was entire absence of motive for such a deed. When 
it shall become known what constitutes sufficient motive for 
the act, then, and not till then, can we truthfully make such 
declarations. The mind of the person who commits the deed 
is the sole judge of the sufficiency of the reason, and persons 
meditating suicide always keep their own counsel. 

It has been alleged, further, that the pistol being found across 
a street some thirty-five feet in width was conckisive of human 
agency other than that of the deceased. A murderer may 
intentionally leave the weapon near his victim with the design 
of diverting attention from the true manner of death, yet in 
such cases the weapon is usually left near the body. The dis- 
tance which this pistol lay from the body can be accounted for 
in two ways: i. It could have been throwm by an assassin — 
and this explanation might be considered if there was any 
evidence showing that an assassination had been committed; 
2. If heavily overloaded and placed by a suicide against the 
elastic walls of the chest, and thus fired, the recoil of such a 
weapon, in the opinion of persons competent to judge, would 
have been quite sufficient to cast it forty, fifty, or sixty feet 
away. That it was heavily loaded is proved by the loudness 
of the report, arousing the whole neighborhood, and by the 
course of the ball. This bullet passed through the body, 
through the corner of a picket, a part of the fence, and then 
it struck a door-step directly upon a nail, driving the nail before 
it with prodigious power. 

We have already described the pistol. It certainly was not 
such a one as highway robbers make use of in these days of 
perfected weapons. It was so large as not to be easily con- 
cealed or carried ; it w^as of such peculiar workmanship it surely 
would be traced to suspicious ownership; the report of its dis- 
charge was like that of a small cannon; its lock was rusty and 
difficult to work — altogether the least possible offensive weapon 
of the modern city robber. It is well known that suicides 
frequently make use of some old useless pistol, or a gun-barrel 
merely, and furthermore they are apt to overload them. It is 
not probable that a modern instance' can be cited wherein a 
premeditated robbery has been planned and executed with the 



SUICIDE. • 527 

aid of such a weapon. The most thorough search, stimulated 
by the offer of large rewards, failed to discover any trace of 
murderer or murderers. 

The preliminary proofs of loss under the several insurance 
policies were duly presented, when the companies, generally, 
denied liability on the ground that the death of Captain Col- 
vocoresses was the result of a settled and deliberate purpose to 
destroy himself and defraud them. The whole matter soon 
passed into the hands of counsel, and preparations were made 
to defend the expected suits at law. Finally, a proposition for 
negotiations, with a view to an adjustment by compromise, was 
favorably received and entertained by counsel representing the 
companies, and resulted in an amicable settlement of the 
several claims in the manner indicated. 

THE MONROE SNYDER CASE. 

In the staid, quiet old borough of Bethlehem, Pennsylvania, 
whose atmosphere is pervaded by the wholesome influences of 
that good, old-fashioned Moravianism which is seen in the 
works and ways of its citizens, a mysterious event occurred on 
the morning of February 226., 1873, which greatly perplexed 
these excellent people. In the glowing words of their local 
paper, " men ominously shook their heads, women cowed in 
fearful contemplation, children looked bewildered — all felt that 
the community had been outraged." The cause of this dire 
consternation, when stated in plain prose, was the finding of 
Monroe Snyder's dead body in the shallow stream of Monocacy 
Creek, just below the old South Bethlehem bridge. Mr. 
Snyder was a citizen of good standing in Bethlehem, and it 
was believed that he had been cruelly murdered and his body 
thrown into the creek. A hurried inspection of the corpse 
revealed three cuts or stabs, all of which were located upon the 
abdomen. The coroner soon arrived, and after viewing the 
situation, he empanelled a jury, and at once entered upon the 
usual superficial method of conducting such inquests. Under 
his direction, an examination and autopsy of the body was 
made by three physicians, who do not appear to fully agree in 
their testimony as to the depth of the abdominal wouiuls, but 
they all were of the one opinion, that death was caused by an 



528 SUICIDE. 

effusion of blood upon the brain. There was no external mark 
of violence upon the head, nor were there any wounds or 
lesions upon the surface of the body which the most thorough 
inspection could detect, except the three stabs upon the abdo- 
men. These wounds were not regarded as immediately danger- 
ous to life, and were not even temporarily disabling. They 
were supposed to be peculiar in shape, as though made by a 
pointless knife, or a knife having a broad cutting end. Two 
of these cuts were upon the right and one was upon the left 
side of the median line. One was on a level with the navel, 
one was an inch and a half, and the other an inch and a quarter 
above it. It is possible that one of them barely pierced 
through the abdominal walls into the cavity of the abdomen. 
There were several inches of snow upon the ground at the 
time of the occurrence, and an effort was made to discover in 
the footprints or other marks about the bridge some token 
which would afford a clue to the mystery. Certain marks were 
observed, and thereupon it was reasoned out that Mr. Snyder 
was assaulted at the upper end of the bridge and struck upon 
his head with a sand-club, which left no mark, and was knocked 
or throwm over the side of the bridge, falling insensibly upon 
the snow beneath. There was noticed what seemed to have 
been the impression of a person having lain there, and around 
it were footprints in the snow. It was further conjectured that 
the inanimate body was thence carried underneath the upper or 
dry arch of the bridge, where it was robbed of such money or 
other valuables as may have been upon it, and that then (for 
what purpose it would be difficult to guess) the abdominal 
wounds were inflicted. To effect this stabbing, the clothing 
was carefully unbuttoned and turned aside sufficiently to facili- 
tate the purpose, and afterwards decently adjusted. The panta- 
loons, vest and coat were properly buttoned immediately over 
the stabs. This having been done, the apparently lifeless form 
was carried — not dragged — through the arch to the opposite 
side of the bridge, where the assassin entered the water and 
threw his burden into the shallow creek, to give an appearance 
of death by drowning. Footprints going towards the water 
from underneath the arch were noticed, but there were none 
returning from the stream. The observers were at a loss to 



SUICIDE. 529 

account for this at first, but finally concluded that after throw- 
ing the body into the creek, the assassin " walked in the water 
up or down, and ascended the bank at some point not yet 
known." 

All that was lacking in evidence was supplied in speculative 
theories, and upon the evening of the same day the jury 
returned a verdict that " Monroe Snyder came to his death by 
effusion of blood upon the brain, caused by a blow upon the 
head inflicted by some person or persons to the jury unknown." 
It may be observed that there was not a particle of evidence to 
support the finding that Mr. Snyder had sustained a blow upon 
his head. The effused blood was by no means evidence of it, 
for the effusion was in no respect different from that which 
arises solely from internal causes, independently of any external 
violence whatever. As a matter of fact, it may be stated also 
that it was afterwards learned that what was supposed to have 
been the impression of Snyder's body lying in the snow upon 
the bank at the upper end of the bridge, was made by other 
parties during the night previous to the one upon which 
Snyder perished. 

The hastily rendered verdict was in full accord with the tem- 
per of the community, but upon sober second thought there 
was manifested a feeling that further investigation ought to be 
made. Some things gradually came to light which looked 
queer, if not altogether unaccountable. At first it was sup- 
posed that Mr. Snyder had been robbed as well as murdered, 
but subsequently it became known that he had nothing valuable 
upon his person of which he could be robbed. He had left his 
watch, pocketbook, and safe-key at home that day before going 
away, and there was no reason to believe that he had any 
money or other valuables about him at the time of his death. 
Finally it began to be whispered that Monroe Snyder may have 
committed suicide, and different opinions and theories were 
at length entertained. As a result of all this conjecturing, the 
coroner recalled his jury to a further hearing of evidence in 
the case. During several ensuing days voluminous testimony 
was taken, the evidence being sharply scrutinized by the legal 
adviser of Mr. Snyder's son Lewis, the district attorney, and 
others. 



530 SUICIDE. 

We learn from the evidence of Mrs. Kresge, sister of the de- 
ceased, that Snyder called at her house the Wednesday before 
his death, where they held a kindly conversation upon family 
matters. He was dispirited and sad, but not more so than she 
had seen him on former occasions. His hearing had become 
impaired, and he was apprehensive that it was growing worse; 
and in speaking of this he cried about it and said he was going 
to New York to consult an aurist. He said he would go the 
next Friday, and that if anything should happen to him his 
folks would be able to help themselves. He spoke of a dream 
that he had had of their parents, who were dead long ago. He 
appeared melancholy, and when he said " good-bye " he was 
still crying on account of (as witness believed) his defective 
hearing. He parted with his sister upon the porch, walking 
away slowly, and she went back into the house to the front 
window. From the window she saw that he was still crying. 
He turned and looked back, and when he saw her at the win- 
dow, he wiped his eyes with his handkerchief. 

The day and night following this interview with his sister he 
was engaged in writing the closing portion of a lengthy confi- 
dential letter addressed to his son, Lewis W. Snyder, which will 
hereafter appear. Lewis says, in evidence, that he retired 
that night at ten o'clock, and does not know whether his 
father was then in bed or not. 

The next morning, Friday, February 21st, Mr. Snyder left 
for New York by the early train. It was rainy, but he took no 
umbrella. No one seems to have known what his business in 
New York was, there being no evidence of his purpose other 
than that which he had stated to his sister. His son Lewis 
says, in evidence, that he had not been able to ascertain where 
his father went while in New York; that he had made inquiry, 
but without avail. It is not known that he consulted an aurist. 
He rode in the same car to New York with a Mr. Worman, 
and upon their arrival in the city they separated at West Street, 
Snyder remarking that he wanted to buy an umbrella, as it was 
then raining. He appeared to Mr. Worman to be in his ac- 
customed health and spirits. 

Mr. Worman left New York by the half-past five train that 
afternoon to return home. On the Jersey side he found Mr. 



SUICIDE. 531 

Snyder in the smoking-car, ready to return by the same train, 
and they again rode together part of the way, conversing a 
Httle. The train was delayed some twenty minutes or more at 
Glendon, and Mr. Snyder asked what caused the delay, and 
inquired of Mr. Worman if he thought the train would arrive 
in Bethlehem in time to catch the omnibus. Worman repHed 
that he thought it would not. Snyder said that he hoped it 
would, as he did not like to cross the bridge alone. The bridge 
he spoke of was not the one near which his dead body was 
subsequently found, but a long, covered structure near the 
Bethlehem Depot, known as the Lehigh bridge. It is neces- 
sary to cross this bridge to pass from the depot to the borough 
of Bethlehem. Worman noticed that Snyder had a new 
umbrella with him, and remembered Snyder's saying that he 
hoped it would not rain on the morrow, as he intended to go 
to a fimeral at Howerton. According to Mr. Worman's evi- 
dence, no one but himself spoke to Snyder between Easton 
and Bethlehem Depot. Arriving at Bethlehem, the omnibus 
was not in waiting; and as Mr. Worman's way home lay in a 
different direction from that of Mr. Snyder, he bade the latter 
" good night " and went directly home, leaving the. car in ad- 
vance of Mr. Snyder. 

The testimony of Mr. Wilson is somewhat conflicting with 
that of Mr. Worman. Wilson entered the train at Freemans- 
burg and rode beyond Bethlehem to Allentown. He was well 
acquainted with Mr. Snyder and rode in the same seat with 
him to Bethlehem. They conversed at considerable length 
upon Snyder's business matters. Worman, whom Wilson did 
not know at that time, sat behind them. Wilson swears '' posi- 
tively no one talked with Mr. Snyder from Phillip sburg up " 
but himself, and that Worman followed Snyder out of the car — 
not preceded him. Mr. Snyder asked Wilson to stop o& at 
Bethlehem and pass the night with him at his house. 

Deficient and apparently unimportant as this evidence is, it 
is all the knowledge we have concerning the man up to the 
time of his leaving the train to go home. Did he go home? 
Mr. Lewis Snyder says that he has no information or knowl- 
edge that his father was at home after leaving for New York 
that Friday morning. 



532 SUICIDE. 

During the first inquest there was nothing known to the 
pubhc touching Mr. Snyder's whereabouts after he left the cars 
upon the arrival of the train at about 9.10 P. M. At this stage 
a new witness appears. Augustus Billing, the aged toll-keeper 
of Lehigh bridge, tells his story as follows: 

It is my business to light the lamps on the bridge and put them 
out. I generally light them at dark and put them out about ten 
o'clock. On last Friday evening, about five minutes before ten 
o'clock, I went across the bridge to put out the lights. There are three 
lights on the bridge; the middle light in the center. I knew Monroe 
Snyder pretty well, and knew where he lived. I did not observe the 
passengers who came on the train. When I went to put out the 
lights I did not see any living, moving thing. I saw nobody walking 
on the bridge, either in the drive-way or elevated walks. I think I 
would have seen them if anybody had been there. I always begin to 
put the lights out at the other end of the bridge. I did so that 
night, and walked in the foot-path because I have to. Nobody 
walked towards me. Between the two lights, the middle and the 
outer light at south end, I came upon a person lying on his back on 
the foot-walk. His hat was ofif, lying about three feet from him, 
and when I saw the body lying there I thought it was a drunken 
man. I had a common lantern with a tallow candle in it, and when 
I came up to this person I set the lantern down upon the walk. Then 
I went to the body and shook it gently. I didn't know who it was 
then, and I said, " Get up here; you'll freeze to death." He didn't 
show any sign of life then, and I shook him again a little harder. 
Then he gave signs of life just the same as one waking from sleep. 
When I saw he was awaking I took him by the shoulder and raised 
him into a sitting position. Then I said again, " Get up here; you'll 
freeze to death here." Then the man said, " I can't; I'm stabbed." 
Then I said, " I'll help you." I lifted a little to assist him, but he got 
up pretty easy. Then I said, " Here is your hat," and I went and 
picked up his hat and put it on his head, and then / saw it was Mr. 
Mo7iroe Snyder, Then he said again, either " I am stabbed twice," 
or " They stabbed me twice," or " He stabbed me twice." Then he 
pulled up his waistcoat. His coat was unbuttoned. He pulled out 
a little of his shirt on the right side, and wanted to show me where 
he was stabbed. I looked, but could see no blood or cut on the 
shirt. I took up my lantern to look, and I doubted that he was cut. 
Then he said, " I think I can go home," and he turned towards this 
end and walked a few paces, and I went to extinguish the light on 
the south end. I put out that light and turned back to put out the 
middle light, which I did, and did not see Mr. Snyder when I got 
back to the middle light. Then I came over to put out the last light 
on this side, thinking that he might have fallen down the steps, for 
I did not see him any more. Then I put out the last light and had 



SUICIDE. 533 

nothing but the candle lantern. I looked all around at the end of the 
bridge, but saw nothing of him. Then I went down the street a little 
way, looking all over the street and sidewalks to see if anybody was 
moving. I saw no one, and then felt easy about his getting home. 
I went into my house and to bed. That is all I knew of it till I heard 
his body was found. I did not find an umbrella on the bridge, though 
I have looked since. It was about five minutes past ten when I got 
home. When I went into my house I mentioned to my wife and 
family that I had saved a man from freezing to death; that it was 
Monroe Snyder, and that I thought he was drunk. I didn't take par- 
ticular notice whether he staggered or not when he walked off. I 
neither heard nor saw any more of him until in the morning, when 
I learned that the body of a man had been found in the creek, and 
some time during the forenoon I heard that it was the body of 
Monroe Snyder. After hearing of Snyder's death, I went along the 
bridge to see if I could find any blood at the place where he told 
me that he had been stabbed, but did not find any. I heard that 
they had an inquest on Saturday; heard of it before night, but did 
not come over to tell the coroner what I knew about it. I did not 
send him any word of what I knew about it. I did not tell the cor- 
oner at any time. I told Mr. Charles Bodder, one day this week, 
that I had seen Mr. Monroe Snyder on the bridge. Before I told 
him I came over to Mr. Misch's to order some coal, where we com- 
menced to talk about this matter, and he told me they were to have 
another inquest. I think it was on Tuesday forenoon. Then I went 
home, and I thought that I would go and tell the inquest what I 
knew about it. I went back and told Mr. Misch to tell the coroner 
to send for me when he began. I told Mr. Bodder afterwards. I was 
then subpoenaed as a witness. I told Mr. Bodder on Wednesday, 
and told him not to say anything about it. Then Mr. Irwin, the 
burgess of the borough, sent for me. I met there two detectives 
from New York, who examined me very closely. At first I refused to 
tell them anything about it, because I was a witness and I thought I 
would then have to testify anyhow. I thought Mr. Snyder was drunk 
that night, and told the burgess, the detectives, and Mr. Bodder that 
I thought so. The reason I didn't ask Mr. Snyder where he had 
been stabbed was that I did not see any marks, and didn't think he 
had been stabbed. I am positively certain that Monroe Snyder was 
the man I saw that night. He did not ask me to help him; if he had, 
I would have gone home with him. I did not know that it was cus- 
tomary, when an inquest was sitting, for all who knew anything about 
it to come and tell it. After it was known who it was that was found 
in the creek, I did not make it public about finding him on the 
bridge, because I was afraid people might blame me for not going 
home with him. It happening that he was dead after I had seen him, 
I was afraid I would be very much blamed for not going home with 
him. When I heard that the second inquest was to be hold, I 



534 SUICIDE. 

thought it time to make it good, and so I told Mr. Misch to tell the 
coroner to subpoena me. It worried me that I had not come forward 
at first to tell what I knew. 

Mr. Charles Bodder testified regarding a conversation which 
he had with Mr. BilHng, the toll-keeper, about Monroe Snyder, 
and repeated the conversation at great length. It was the story 
of Mr. Billing's finding Mr. Snyder on the bridge, and all the 
circumstances connected therewith agreed perfectly with the 
testimony given by Mr. Billing. On the same day, while 
walking over the bridge, he found a paper sticking between the 
boards a short distance from where Mr. Snyder was said to 
have been lying. It was an envelope from which one end had 
been torn squarely ofif, so as to admit of drawing out the 
enclosure. It was postmarked " Danville, N. J., Feb. ist, 1873," 
and addressed to " Mr. Monroe Snyder, Bethlehem, Pa." 
This envelope had been picked up from the floor of the bridge 
on the same day Snyder's body was discovered in Monocacy 
Creek, and the man who found it placed it between the boards 
where it was afterwards seen by Bodder. 

It does not appear that Snyder was seen so as to be positively 
identified, after he left the Lehigh bridge. At a later hour 
during the night it so happened that some two or three wit- 
nesses noticed a solitary person in the vicinity of South Beth- 
lehem bridge, and one of the witnesses ihought at the time 
that he recognized the figure of the person as resembling that 
of Monroe Snyder, whom he knew. It was then past tv\^o 
o'clock in the morning, and was a pretty cold night. The 
person was standing in a leaning posture, on the bridge against 
its south parapet. Witness walked close to him in passing, 
and looked back over his shoulder after passing, and saw the 
man still standing there. 

Mr. Snyder h^ad been unfortunate in some of his financial 
investments and speculations during the two or three years 
preceding his death, so that his estate was impaired to such an 
extent as to subject him to serious embarrassments. His resi- 
dence and other real estate were mortgaged for a large amount, 
and what money he could raise was invested in hazardous slate 
and ore speculations, from which he derived no income or 
profit. By the highest estimates, the total value of his property 



SUICIDE. 535 

was $27,500, while his habihties amounted to more than 
$36,000. Among other efforts to retrieve his diminished as- 
sets, he had entered into business relations with a Mr. Lynn, 
which proved to be the cause of much annoyance and trouble. 
The day before leaving home for New York he effected a set- 
tlement with Lynn, disposing of the leases which he held for 
operating in hematite ore in New Jersey. He then completed 
a lengthy written statement addressed to his son Lewis, wherein 
he speaks of the settlement just effected with Lynn. 

An ill-defined rumor concerning the existence of such a 
paper was afloat, and Mr. Lewis W. Snyder was recalled to the 
witness-standj when the district attorney called the witness's 
attention to the fact that much had been said about a certain 
paper which was left addressed to him, and asked if he would 
show that paper to the coroner and jury. The witness replied: 

" No, sir, I will not. It is a purely private matter which has 
nothing to do with this case. I found it in my father's safe on 
Sunday morning after his death. He also left a will. I am di- 
rected in the instrument not to reveal its contents. It reveals 
nothing bearing on the case." 

The legal adviser of the witness here interposed and said that 
he had read over the paper referred to. That it directs about 
certain stock; instructs his son, the witness, to keep out of 
certain enterprises, and gives a great deal of information solely 
regarding business. It speaks of his holding some doubtful 
securities, and of other matters which it would be entirely 
improper to lay before the public. It speaks of enterprises in 
which the prospects may be good, but counsels sticking to 
legitimate business, which is surer, though it returns less profit. 

The coroner expressed a desire to see the paper. The 
counsel for the witness said that he could not, that it had noth- 
ing whatever to do with the case. Some sparring between the 
lawyers ensued, and the witness said that he must decline to 
show the paper. The district attorney remarked that unless 
the paper was shown, there might be unfounded suspicions 
against the witness, which would be removed by its exhibition, 
and that the coroner rmist see the paper. The witness's coun- 
sel here exclaimed, " Commit him if you dare. What is this 
suspicion founded on? Nothing. I will agree to let the dis- 



536 SUICIDE. 

trict attorney see that paper, but the coroner cannot, and I 
have instructed my cHent not to show it. If the district attor- 
ney thinks it should be made pubHc, I will so instruct my 
client." 

The witness and his counsel then retired with the district 
attorney, where they privately examined the much talked of 
paper, and upon their return to the jury-room the district 
attorney said that he saw nothing whatsoever in it which in any 
way connected it with the case. The handwriting was identi- 
fied as that of the elder Air. Snyder, and the prosecuting at- 
torney expressed himself as perfectly satisfied. 

But the effort to suppress this important manuscript did not 
succeed, and the demand for its production was reluctantly 
complied with. It was produced upon the condition prescribed 
by the counsel of Lewis Snyder, that a separate oath be 
administered to the coroner and jurors that they should not 
divulge its contents. The representatives of the press then 
demanded the publication of the letter, and those having it in 
charge, fearing the censure and odium as well as suspicion that 
would be aroused and expressed if they longer pursued this 
policy of silence, reluctantly yielded, and the letter was pub- 
lished. Its contents have such an important bearing upon the 
questions involved in the case, that we here introduce a 
verbatim copy: 

To MY DEAR AND MUCH BELOVED SoN Lewis— Lewis, somtimes 
I feel, and it appears to me that I want to be here, with you and 
Mother, on this world, long, any more, but we dont know what God 
will let happen with us; but we have to submit. I dont hope to get 
killed or die soon; but sometimes, I feel and think that I would not 
be in this world long any more, Lewis, if God calls me home, or 
away from you and Mother, you must do the best you can. first of 
all, be kind to mother, whatever you do, and see that she is well cared 
for. Lewis, I have more Debts than you know, or that you think; 
but I cant help it; you know that I have always tried to do the best 
I could, but oftentimes, where I thought I could make something, 
I lost. I often thought I would tell you more about my circum- 
stances, than I did, but, when I meant to tell you, I could not do it, 
and if I would, it would not make it any better, if I could turn 
things into money, what I would like to sell, I could shift it round; 
but there is no sale for nothing at present. Lewis, I have my life 
insured for Sixty-five Thousand Dollars, altogether, for 20 Thousand 



SUICIDE. 537 

in the Penn Mutual life insurance Company of Philadelphia, and for 
30 Thousand Dollars in the Mutual life insurance Company of New 
York; and for 10 Thousand Dollars I have an accidental Policy in 
the Hartford Company of Connecticut; and 5 Thousand in the Mutual 
Protection life insurance Company of Philadelphia; which is for the 
benefit of mother. 20 Thousand in the Penn Mutual is for mother; 
and 10 Thousand in the Mutual Life of New York is for mother. 
All my other insurance is for your benefit, if anything should happen 
with me, Lewis, get the money out of the insurance Companys, for 
they have to pay it. the Agents of the Companys I insured in, will 
assist you, and pay all my debts, for I borrowed some money to pay 
the premiums on the insurance, so that my Creditors could perhaps 
get a hold of insurance, and if they could not, pay all my debts, and 
be a man, so that nobody can say, that they lost money on your 
Father. You can pay all my debts, and hold all the property, if you 
get the money out of the insurance Companys, and have money left. 
I insured to much; it costs to much money to keep it up, or to pay 
the premiums; but, I am in now, I will keep it up, if I can, Lewis 
keep out of these Companys, for it is worth nothing to be in these 
large Companys, and be very careful that you dont get Cheated so 
much, and dont let people talk you into all these things or into any- 
thing. Lewis, dont show this paper to any body, whatever you do, 
dont let any person see it; Keep it entirely a secret, if anything should 
happen with me, sell my interest in all these Iron mine or ore Leases, 
it is to expensive and very risky Business, and dont listen to what 
other people tell you, and tend well to your store. The insurance 
Companys must pay the insurance, what I am insured, they cant 
get out of it, if, I am gone once, dont let people know for how much 
I am insured, or how much I am in debt. Keep it as much secret as 
you can, for not everybody need to know, for it wont make it any 
better, but when you get the money out of the insurance Companys, 
if it ever should happen so, dont think you would keep the money 
and not pay the Debts for that purpose I insured so much that all my 
debts can be paid if anything should happen, you can pay the Debts, 
and have some money left, and keep all the property what we have, 
if you manage it right, the Agents of the Companys will assist you 
in taking the afifidavits for Proof of Death, and so on. Lewis, you will 
find my last will and Testament, in the safe in a sealed envelope, 
Lewis, dont do as I have done, dont let people talk you into any- 
thing, to go security, or endorse notes to the Banks and all sorts of 
such things; be very careful about such things, and dont do as I have 
done. I done a great deal to much of such things. Lewis, 
keep that safe, and the gold, and silver money what is in the safe, 
keep that without fail, and keep all the property for the present time, 
if I should be called off; for in course of time the property here will 
bring a good price. I made you my executor in my will, if anything 
hapens with me you must take my will to Easton to the Registers 



538 SUICIDE. 

office, inside of Thirty days of my death, and take out your papers 
as executor of my estate; the man that signed the will, as witnesses, 
you must take to Easton to testify to the will; you dont need to give 
security as Executor, you can take an inventory, or an appraisement 
of my things and before you have to keep a sale, you can see wether 
you get the money of the Insurance Companys or not. 

Monroe Snyder. 

Lewis, I dont hope or expect to die soon, or get killed; but god 
only knows; we cant tell, life is uncertain, but Death is certain, 
about keeping Llewellyms insurance Policy up, if he lives longer 
than I, you can do as you please, or as you think best, try and keep 
everything as it is, and as quiet as possible; it is of no use to let 
every body know how things are; I know if something should happen 
with me, mother would trouble herself a great deal about it; if it 
should be the case take good care of her whatever you do. 

Lewis I think I told you, that the Penn Mutual life insurance Com- 
pany holds a Mortgage of five Thousand Dollars on our house, for 
which they hold one of my insurance policys of five Thousand Dol- 
lars, as colateral security, I have a paper in the safe that shows it, 
and the receipts that I paid the premiums on it. they also hold a 
fire insurance Policy, as colateral security, which is transfered to 
them, you must see that it comes all right. Jonas Snyder holds 
the fire insurance Policy on the Drug Store Building as colateral 
security for Mr. Taylors mortgage, that Policy is not transfered. I 
have a receipt in the Safe from Jonas Snyder. Lawyer Stout, at 
Easton, is the agent for the fire insurance Company; where the Drug 
Store property is insured in. 

Mrs. Reeder at Easton, holds the insurance Policy on your stock, 
as Colateral security, for the Thousand Dollars, what Shoe- 

maker had loaned of her. Lawyer Reeder attends to her business, so 
that you can find everything, and try and straighten it up, for Gods 
sake Monroe Snyder. 

Lewis, I think it would be best, if something should happen with 
me, if you would get every thing appraised and sell it. Mother can 
take, at the appraisement, what she wants; and anything of the per- 
sonally property you want, you can buy; but the houses, or Real 
estate, you cant buy, because you are my Executor; you cant give a 
Deed to yourself, but Mother can buy the Real estate, or get a good 
friend to buy it for her, and she can take the deeds, and afterwards 
give you another Deed. I think that would be the best way, and 
about Grand Mother Beils Estate, see that it comes all right, so that 
Daniel and Reigel, who are my security, need not to pay anything 
for me. the best way I think is to sell everything after I am gone, 
as soon as you get the money out of the Insurance Companys for 
that matter about the St Nicholas Slate Company and others might 
make you trouble, where I am security, if the property is not sold. 



SUICIDE. 539 

if you sell the property for cash it wont come so high and if you 
gave the money of the Insurance Companys for my insurance that 
would be the best way. anything of the personal property you can 
take, by the appraisement, or buy it; you and Mother can keep all 
the personal property; keep by the appraisement or buy it; dont let 
that safe go to Strangers; keep that, and keep the silver and gold 
money, what is in it; if you dont keep the other money, if there is 
any, the silver and gold, dont say anything to nobody; that is some 
of Grandpaps yet, and William and Amanda had some when they died; 
that is in the safe yet, and yours to, what you have for a good many 
years. Keep all that, and dont let Mother give all her money, if I 
am gone, so that she has somthing to live, if the insurance is all 
paid, you can get along right well, and I cant see no reason why they 
wont be paid; for the premium is all paid; on the Policys, and the 
Companys are all good Companys. do the best you can, but never 
go security for nobody, nor never endorse a note, for no man, no 
matter who he is, if you manage right, you can get along, without 
asking any body to go security for you, or to endorse for you, dont 
give up Shoemakers Slate Stock Certificates, what I hold, as Col- 
lateral Security, until he has settled all his notes, what I have endorsed 
for him. This Guardian thing you also must settle. Charles things 
are all settled, but Owen Beils child, I am Guardian for, and for Lewis 
Berkenstocks two little girls, if I am not here any more they will get 
other Guardians, but dont go Guardian for nobody; it only makes 
trouble, but see that these things all come right, the Books and 
papers about this Guardian business are all in the safe; they show 
everything how it is. Lewis you know how it is with the 
wagens; that one of them belongs to you, which one you want, and 
the Sleigh, wolf Robe, and Blanket, and Bells, are also yours, it was 
bought for you, and you must keep it. if Henry Beil ever asks you 
to take that Slate Stock back, what he got of me dont you do it, or 
pay him any money; dont give him a cent, for he cant make you do 
it; perhaps he will never ask you; I dont know as he will; he never 
asked me to take it back; if he would or ever will, I wont do it; only 
see that Grandmother Beils estate is settled up right, so that they 
cant say that they did not get their money, and if the securitys had 
to pay anything, I think Daniel is pretty severe, if he gets mad once 
at anybody, mother's money you must take care what she gets out 
of the insurance Companys for she cant, you must see to, that you 
will also find, a receipt for your Stock in the Drug Store, so that 
you can hold that; perhaps my creditors might try to get a hold of it, 
but I dont see how they can, if you have this receipt; that shows that 
you paid me for it; if anything happens with me, settle everything up, 
all right, and as soon as you can; and as quiet as you can; the sooner, 
the better; if you sell the houses, let mother buy them, or get a good 
friend to buy them for, and she can take the deed, and give you a 
deed, again; I think Henry Biel would be a good man to buy the 



540 SUICIDE. 

houses for mother; you cant trust anybody, particular no stranger; 
perhaps, if you would get Hess to buy it, he would not let you have 
the half, any; if you sell the houses, for cash, or a short credit, they 
wont come so high, and you can do that, because, you get the money 
out of the insurance Companys. if Mother ever gets money of the 
insurance Companys, if she live longer than I do, you must take care 
of it, for she cant, and dont let her lend out, unless you see it. if 
you put it in a good national Bank, I think that is the safest or take 
the first mortgage on Real estate. Whatever you do, dont let people 
be lei you, or lei you in things as they did me; and stay out of these 
Companys; never go in a Company of no kind, for it is worth nothing 
to be in these Companys. but you are old enough to look a litle 
ahed, and dont spend much money on them Iren ore leases; if you 
can get a little somthing for them, sell and if no let them run out, 
and dont spend much money on them; for it is very risky Business; 
lottery Business, as Mr. Jacob Hiestand said. Lewis, I settled up 
everything with Lyn; he is to pay everything we owe, over in Jersey.* 

So now Lewis, keep out of these things as I told you often, because 
it is worth nothing; this mining is very Risky Business; dont spend 
any money on them Leases what I hold, if you can get anything for 

them sell them; if not let them run out; 

if anything should 
happen with me, which I hope it wont, but we dont know, for life 
is uncertain, but death is certain, Lynn must pay everything what 
owe in Jersey, for Lumber and work and for hauling the ore, and 
Klines Royalty and Klines Timber, and everything, before he can 
get them notes, what he left me as colateral security; I also gave 
him that Lease there at Klines, what I had on Henry R. Keuntz 
land otherwise I could not settle with him. 

Monroe Snyder. 

This letter tells its own story of despondency and of impend- 
ing bankruptcy. " Lewis, I have more debts than you know, 
or that you think; but I can't help it." If the harassed debtor 
only could " shift around," there would be some hope, but 
there was " no sale for nothing at present." Then he imme- 
diately adds, " I have insured my life for $65,000," and proceeds 
to enumerate the companies, and the amounts insured in each. 
The aggregate sum is rather large for a man of his age and 
means. Even the payment of one annual premium must have 
been burdensome, for it appears that on his policies the esti- 
mated yearly payments, less dividends, would be $1,869. ^^ 

*He here expresses an opinion of certain men, which has no connection with the question 
at issue. 



SUICIDE. 541 

a matter of fact, he was unable to pay his premiums in full, and 
he gave his note in settlement of one of them. His bank-book 
had been posted, and not a cent was due him as a depositor. 
His check was protested, and several notes were rapidly matur- 
ing which he was unable to meet. As guardian, he had been 
cited to file his account, and at a time when it was impossible 
to pay his wards a dollar of their money. He knew that before 
another season would pass he must be regarded as a ruined 
man. It will be observed that he looks forward to the sum 
insured as the sole hope of saving his estate to his family. In 
short, he says, " I insured so much that all my debts can be 
paid." 

According to the evidence of one of the agents, the insurance 
last placed upon his life was solicited by the agent, and not by 
the insured. Snyder was unwilling to insure unless he could 
trade ofif some of his slate stock in payment of the premium, 
and the agent undertook to dispose of it for him, but without 
success. Finally, he consented to give his note for one 
premium, which he did in the sum of $517.80. 

With a view to detect, if possible, the guilty person or per- 
sons who had caused Mr. Snyder's death, numerous witnesses 
were subpoenaed and every rumor thoroughly sifted. Under 
the stimulus of rewards exceeding $5,000 in amount, the best 
detective talent of New York and other cities was actively at 
work. But no trace of an assassin could be found. 

^Finally, the evidence being all in, the jury after an hour's 
deliberation found that Snyder's death was occasioned ''by an 
effusion of blood upon the brain, caused by injuries received 
at the hands of a person or persons to the jury unknown." 
This verdict, as compared with the previous one found by the 
same jury, differs therefrom in assigning, as the cause for the 
effusion of blood upon the brain, simply the word " injuries " 
(with all that the word implies), in the place of a '' blow upon 
the head." Evidently, after a protracted hearing of the evi- 
dence, the jury had become satisfied there had been no blow 
upon the head. There certainly was no external visible sign 
of such blow, according to the evidence. Nor were any 
"injuries" found upon his person other than the cuts upon 
the abdomen, and to these, ex necessitate, the jury must have 



542 SUICIDE. 

referred as the cause of the effusion of blood upon the brain. 
It would be interesting to know by what pathological reasoning 
they arrived at this brilliant conclusion. At the time of the 
autopsy it was agreed by, the medical gentlemen in attendance 
that this effusion was the immediate cause of death. No 
examination, however, was made of the lungs, and no inquiry 
was made to ascertain if the effusion was the result of strangu- 
lation from drowning. As there was an entire absence of ex- 
ternal indications of violence, the presumption became very 
strong that the cause of the effusion was internal and not 
external. 

But the case did not end here. The insurance companies 
were not satisfied with the preliminary proofs of loss under the 
respective policies, and the claims were not paid at maturity. 
Finally, a compromise was effected under a portion of the 
insurance, while the Mutual Life decided to defend its interests 
in a suit which was instituted to recover the sum of $30,000 
under its policies. This company had certain legal defenses 
under its contract of insurance with Snyder, but in addition 
thereto the cause was tried upon its merits under the question 
of suicide or homicide; the policy declaring the contract void 
if the insured died by his own hand. The case is very fully 
stated in the charge of the court to the jury, from which we 
make the following extracts: 

It is conceded to be impossible that the body could have been 
where it was found through any simple accident without some effort 
of will of a human creature. There is a difficulty which we will con- 
sider more particularly hereafter in comprehending how the body 
could have been where it was found, without some other agency than 
that of the dead person in his lifetime. The stream had not force 
enough to move it even if the fall had been in the water, but the 
weight of probability is that the fall was in a dry place, and not in 
this shallow stream. The body was from twenty to twenty-five feet — 
I think you will safely say, from the evidence, at least twenty-two 
feet — from the nearest point which it could have reached from the 
bridge. 

.... Now, gentlemen, it is very unsafe here even to argue about 
probabilities; the most improbable things are sometimes true, and the 
most probable things sometimes don't happen; but if you go for mere 
probabilities, if the murderer stabbed this body after death, it is very 
strange he did not cut deeper; if, on the contrary, the wounds were 
inflicted during life, either by a murderer or by a suicide, there is no 



SUICIDE. 543 

difficulty in finding just such little wounds as these. If a man stabs 
himself, he will very likely shrink from cutting deep; and if a man 
stabs another, he must do the best he can. . . . 

.... It is admitted that the defendant has assumed and taken on 
itself the burden of proving the theory to your reasonable satisfaction, 
that this man died by his own act or hand — in other words, that the 
death was caused by suicide; and the question or questions are 
whether the evidence is incompatible with the contention on either 
side — on one that it was suicide, and on the other side that it was 
murder. 

The learned judge then very impartially and exhaustively 
analyzed the confidential letter which Snyder left addressed 
to his son, and then proceeded to say: 

It is, for the decision of this case, of no importance whether he 
afterward conceived the idea of suicide, or entertained it when the 
insurance was effected. It is the same thing in the legal result, but 
it is important that we should get at the truth by whatever means, 
because if we get upon the path by untruthful means, we get off the 
track and don't know where we shall lose ourselves, and for that 
reason I have thought it my duty in this painful case to do justice to 
this man's memory, for he has an awful account to settle of debts, 
and in this respect I think injustice has been done him, and that there 
is not the least ground to impute to him an intention to take his life 
when he made the last of these insurances; but, as I said before, that 
is not, I think, the question. The true question is whether, after that 
last policy was effected, this man, considering the desperate condition 
of his affairs if he lived, and the favorable condition to his family if 
the insurances were received by them, did not conceive, but meditate 
with more or less of resolution, the thought of taking his own life. 
If that is made a subject of serious inquiry — and I think, gentlemen, 
that it is — if you go into probabilities much more probable, that when 
this simple-hearted man, as I think he seems to have been, found 
himself in this vortex of difficulties, not able to look his affairs in the 
face — when he saw that he had the insurance to this large amount, 
that the thought or temptation, or whatever it may be called, may 
have come into his mind, and that is the inquiry which we must 
approach with candid and serious thought. 

Now here the evidence is twofold: 

First. The letter; and 

Secondly. The occurrences which immediately preceded and followed 
it. When I say immediately preceded, I say immediately preceded 
the last stage of it. 

Gentlemen of the jury, this paper is not. independently of its par- 
ticular contents, of an extraordinary kind, as I can see, at all. I mean 
to say that there is nothing surprising in a man's leaving confiden- 



544 SUICIDE. 

tial directions to his only son and heir, as to what shall be done after 
he is dead — the sort of directions that are not to go into a will. I am 
not now speaking of this paper in particular, I am only speaking of 
the character of such documents. . . . Now, there are two views of 
this paper called a letter. One is that it was a post-mortuary, con- 
fidential communication to the son and heir; the other, that it was a 
letter of one contemplating suicide; and there is a third view, perhaps, 
that it was partly each, and that it was the production of a man who, 
though he contemplated suicide, was irresolute in writing it, and 
afterward as to executing the purpose. He certainly speaks in this 
paper of what he was to do if he were to live and go on in the 
world. He certainly speaks in the other parts of it that he was to 
go out of the world very soon with violence. It is, it seems to me, 
a paper of a man who seems to be vacillating between contending 
purposes. . . . You have looked, at my request, in the early stage 
of this case, at the signatures of the three stages of this paper. It is, 
I think, both from the contents of the papers themselves, and from 
one of the signatures — there are. three places where it is signed — 
evident that this paper was written at intervals. When the first stage 
of it was penned nobody can conjecture, except we all know it was 
after the 13th of January. Of that fact there can be no doubt. We 
also know the last of it was finished either on the night of the 20th 
of February, or the morning of the 21st. 

The Court then read to the jury extracts from the letter 
relating to the question of insolvency, and about keeping the 
fire insurance policies in force, and then said: 

When he wrote the first of these three parts he thought they 
would keep the property and pay the debts out of the policies. He, 
in the third stage, the third division of the third part, changed his 
mind, and thinking things not likely to be quite as favorable as he 
thought at first, he thinks they had better sell, and he says: " Lewis, 
I think it would be best, if something should happen with me, if you 
would get everything appraised, and sell it." Then again he says: 
" Lewis, if mother ever gets money of the insurance companies, if 
she lives longer than I do, you must take care of it, for she can't, 
and don't let her lend out unless you see it." Then, gentlemen, he 
goes on: "Lewis, I settled up everything with Lynn; he is to pay 
everything we owe over in Jersey." Then he describes his first set- 
tlement, and he closes up with Lynn over again: " If anything should 
happen with me — I hope it won't, but we don't know, for life is 
uncertain, but death is certain — Lynn must pay everything what I 
owe in Jersey." .... 

I will now ask your attention to the parts of it which seem to 
import, or may be contended to import, that he intended, or expected, 
or contemplated an early and violent death. 



SUICIDE. 545 

The heads of the argument on this subject are several, one that in 
which concealment is enjoined. Now, gentlemen, this I repeat is 
unimportant, unless it is made out there is something to conceal. 
Merely directions to the son that this paper was not to be exhibited, 
unless there is something in it which gives effect to that direction, 
I have said, would be dealing very unfairly with what men leave 
behind them for their families. There is, however, I observe, as I 
shall read presently those parts of the letter, frequent expressions of 
apprehension of death — early death. There is also an indication of 
doubt as to getting money from the insurance companies. There is 
also an indication of an early time of anticipated settlement of depen- 
dencies, but that is fully answered by other passages which look to 
the future as though he was going to live. 

The Court then read and commented upon the remaining 
portion of the paper relating to apprehensions of early death, 
and to the several insurances effected upon his life, and said: 

Now there is nothing surprising or evil in his telling his son that 
he had effected this insurance, and that the son must get the money; 
but the manner in which the subject is recurred to afterward is impor- 
tant, and the passage I have read is perhaps in one respect very 
important, but that is more for your consideration than for mine. 
He refers to the whole of the insurance as amounting to $65,000, 
which he looks to as a fund for the payment of his debts. Now he 
includes in that $15,000, as I understand it, or $10,000 as it is admitted, 
of insurance against accidents. If he did not contemplate a violent 
death, would he have reasonably considered that as a part of the 
available funds of his estate? Would a man who would look to some- 
thing out of the common course as the cause of death, speak of an 
insurance against accidents in the same category with the insurance 
that must be paid at all events, and sum them up as one whole as a 
fund to pay his debts with? The answer to it, however, is that there 
was enough without the policy against accident. But is that a satis- 
factory answer? Don't it still remain that whether there was enough 
or not, he looked upon it as a fund to come into the hands of his 
executors? .... 

Now, that there was an early time for the expected settlement with 
the insurance; that he had an idea of some difficulty about it; that 
he includes the policy against accidents in the sum of the insurance 
money, are the points of chief importance bearing on the question 
whether he meditated suicide, in my opinion. 

In this immediate connection I will refer you to the interview 
with his sister, Mrs. Kresge, because if the letter alone is sufficient, 
or if it warrants suspicions, they may be increased by what passed 
at the interview with Mrs. Kresge, and now certainly by the occur- 
rence which followed. 



546 SUICIDE. 

.... The question is, gentlemen, whether anything in this inter- 
view amounted to a leave-taking? It has somewhat that tendency, 
apparently, but we might have heard the answer; that it is only from 
what we know afterward, a sort of after-born wisdom, that makes 
us attribute importance to what may have been a mere ordinary 
occurrence; in its important relations I confess it has some bearing 
upon the question. 

But now, gentlemen, let us consider the occurrences which fol- 
lowed, because it may be that these occurrences are such that, com- 
pared with the letter and with the interview with Mrs. Kresge, you 
may put them together and attribute a purpose that no one alone 
would satisfy you in attributing, and all of them together may remove 
a doubt that you might have as to any one in particular. 

The occurrences which followed the letter, if they form the infer- 
ences of premeditated suicide, they certainly throw a great doubt 
upon the question of the firmness of any such resolution. 

The evidence covering what occurred on the day and night 
previous to his going to New York is next considered by the 
Court; the settlement with Lynn; the trip to New York and 
return; and the alleged conversations in the cars with Worman 
and Wilson. Upon the latter fact the Court says: 

Now, gentlemen, nothing can be more natural than that conversa- 
tion, and it was a business-like conversation, which the event verified, 
because the omnibus in fact was not there when he got there. If 
he meditated suicide it would have been a great comfort to him to 
have somebody to go home with him to prevent it. From that con- 
versation, in other words, if he did, he was irresolute, and if there 
was any doubt about that, the doubt, I think, is removed upon the 
testimony of Mr. Wilson. 

.... Now, gentlemen, this transaction indicated, you may think, 
that if he meditated suicide, he would have been very glad for an 
excuse for not executing his purpose that night. In other words, 
that there was irresolution and no fixed purpose, but that he would 
if he found himself alone. No omnibus, no companion, occurs to 
the thought of suicide as quite consistent. 

.... Now where do we next find him? And here comes a dif- 
ferent part of the case. You find him, if you believe Mr. Billing — 
I see no reason why you should not — we find him lying on his back 
on the foot-path of the Lehigh bridge, apparently asleep, at five 
minutes before ten. Billing would seem to have been a stagnant 
sort of a person, but a very good man apparently. 

The Court here reviewed the evidence of the toll-keeper and 
proceeded to say: 



SUICIDE. 547 

Here was a man who should have been at home, and was found 
lying on his back with, as he said, wounds. If these were the wounds 
already intiicted, and he had lain down there to die, and got asleep 
and was likely to be frozen to death with the cold, how does that 
alter the aspect of the case, unless you believe that the wounds 
had been infiicted by some person who had left? 

Now, Mr. Snyder, the deceased person, if that was the man on the 
bridge, did not make a long stay on the bridge. He went his way 
towards home, and he said, " I can go home," so Mr. Billing tells 
us, but independently of that he did what was the same thing as 
saying it; he went towards the town. Here was then a man who 
after more than half an hour, if found in this position, saying he 
was stabbed, moving towards home and not reaching home. How 
does this present itself to your mind? How are you going to explain 
it? Do you believe that he had been wounded by men who had 
left him there? If so, you will adopt that theory, if you think it a 
rational one. If you believe what he said about the wounds was 
untrue, that is an explanation that diminishes the difficulty. He was 
wounded, as he said, able to walk, to go toward home, even though 
he might have been frozen to death and got to sleep after the wound. 
Why did he not reach home? What was the impediment? 

As to the subsequent witnesses, I do not think that, in the absence 
of Billing's testimony, they sufficiently identify Mr. Snyder as the 
man who was seen, although I would leave that entirely to you as 
a matter of fact, but that the testimony of Mr. Billing, with the 
testimony which follows him, suffices entirely to convince you that 
Mr, Snyder, in a state of irresolution, unwilling to execute his pur- 
pose, hesitated, not content to go home, nor with firmness enough 
to take his life, was rambling and tumbling about in the dark at 
night. If he is the man referred to by the subsequent witnesses, then 
it is almost impossible not to look back to this letter, however 
obscure, and not to look back to Billing's testimony, not to look 
back to his interview with his sister, not to take a painful view of this 
occurrence. 

Now, was he seen afterwards? Did he remain on that bridge with- 
out going home, or was he dead, or soon after murdered by one or 
more unknown men? Why, gentlemen, if Billing's testimony is 
true, it requires a great deal of self-possession to comprehend how 
this man was not taking care of himself, and why he did not go home, 
and so forth. . . . 

We come to a later hour when there is something more like identi- 
fication. There is a man who was engaged in the zinc works, and 
who was walking home after two o'clock at night. 

The Court here reviewed the testimony of this witness, who 
saw a person resembling Monroe Snyder standing on the 
bridge crossing Monocacy Creek, and then proceeded to say: 



548 SUICIDE. 

Now, gentlemen, I think this is sufficient identification for us, if 
it is to be considered by you for what it is worth; if BiUing tells the 
truth, and, as I said, I see no reason why we should disbelieve him; 
and if Monroe Snyder, as is unquestionable, never got home and a 
man is seen in this attitude whose figure resembles Monroe Snyder. 

So, then, this man roamed about in the darkness of this 

night until after two o'clock. Was that Monroe Snyder? Had he, 
before or after he was with Billing, stabbed or attempted to stab 
himself? Had he passed or crossed the bridge without going to 
his house? Had he thus been on the bridge? If so, there is evidence 
tending strongly to prove that he was meditating suicide; that he 
was irresolute; that he could not bring himself to carry his purpose 
into efTect; that for the want of an instrument to stab himself he 
could not stab deep enough; that if he meant anything else he could 
not execute his purpose; in short, he was very irresolute. 

Now, gentlemen, it does not do to theorize about what may have 
occurred. If we can find any other rational view of the case, it would 
be very irrational to say that he had been all this time medi- 
tating suicide. He nevertheless might have been afterward murdered 
and thrown over, but if you can find any other way of reconciling 
evidence, as I said before, probabilities are not facts. If he was the 
same man, as the defense alleges, thus roaming about, he certainly 
had not courage enough to execute his purpose; however, you may 
believe he meditated it. If you believe that he meditated suicide, whether 
he formed that resolution after the cars had been detained at Easton, 
or had formed it as long as forty-eight hours when he was con- 
versing with Mrs. Kresge, some earlier time, when he was writing 
this paper for his son; I say, if you find that he meditated suicide, 
then I would advise you to attribute his death to the purpose he had 
formed, if you can reconcile the way the body was found with suicide. 
But observe, you must be convinced that he meditated suicide, and 
that the position of the body was consistent with the commission of 
suicide. If on the contrary, gentlemen, you doubt his identification 
by Billing; if you disregard this loose identification which followed; 
if you think the writing, and the interview with Mrs. Kresge can be 
reconciled with a more natural and more innocent purpose, why then 
there is no trouble in your verdict; but supposing that you cannot 
get over these things; supposing that he meditated suicide; then let 
us recur to the crisis: how did the body get where it was found? 
Could it have reached the position where it was found without some 
other human agency than that of the deceased man himself? 

You have heard the arguments there are about the idea. You 
have perceived already that for a murderer to throw a man over, 
intending to kill him, from that height, is by no means an impossi- 
bility. That a man, himself, should form that idea, intending to com- 
mit suicide, deserves some consideration. If he happened to fall on 
his head, it would do very completely. It is for you to say whether 



SUICIDE. 549 

there would not be more than that blood on the hat, and whether his 
skull would not be dashed to pieces; but he might not have fallen on 
his head. Might he not at least have broken his arms or legs and 
saved his life and not been killed by it? Did he choose that mode 
of death, therefore, if he wanted to commit suicide? The fact is 
evident, the body was found, but is it found where it would have 
been consistent with such a purpose? And if you find the purpose 
executed you might get over the difficulty; but if you find that the 
body could not be where it was without some other human agency 
than his own, have the defendants succeeded in proving suicide? 
The burden of proof is on them. I don't bring it beyond any unmanly 
doubt; I mean within a reasonable ground. 

If you think that that man could have got to the place where his 
body was found, without some other human agency, then your verdict 
should be, I think, for the defendant. 

If you find from the evidence that he meditated suicide — I don't 
say that as a matter of law, but as a rational conclusion from the 
evidence; or if you find the contrary (and I don't know how far a 
man of fifty can jump, but I believe nine feet is a pretty good jump; 
we young men think thirteen feet a pretty good long one) — you can 
take into consideration these measures; but as far as a man could 
jump, he would fall much short of it. There would be a curve inward 
before he could get to the ground, and if you think he could have got, 
by his own jump, more than six feet, then his body was found twenty 
odd feet from the bridge, as I understand the evidence. Could he 
have got there? If you think, further, that he could not have been 
where he wa? found without some other human agency, then it 
would be forcing things to say that he committed suicide and murder 
both, or that he attempted suicide and was afterward murdered and 
dragged to the place where he was found. These are fancies which 
you will hardly entertain. 

The learned judge commences and closes that portion of his 
very able charge to the jury which touches the question 
whether Snyder committed suicide or was murdered, with 
directing attention to the difficulty of comprehending how the 
body could have been where it was found, without some other 
human agency than that of the dead person during his life- 
time. The Court thinks that if Snyder could have got to the 
place where his body was found, zmthout some other human 
agency, then the verdict should he for the defendant^ In the 
mind of the Court, the whole question resolves itself into a 
solution of this difficulty. Everything else points, by infer- 
ence, unmistakably to suicide. '' But," says the Court. '* as a 
rational conclusion from the evidence," a jump of twenty odd 



550 SUICIDE. 

feet from the bridge into the stream beneath, is too much of 
a jump for human creduHty. 

" For a murderer to throw a man over, intending to kill him, 
from that height, is by no means an impossibility," says the 
Court, but his Honor does not say that it is or is not an impos- 
sibility for a murderer to seize his struggling victim and throw 
him at arm's-length to such a distance from the bridge. The 
Court thinks " thirteen feet a pretty good long jump " — quite 
too heavy a strain to place upon the legs of a man of fifty. 
But there appears to be no limit placed upon the distance to 
which a man may be thrown by a murderer. The body was 
found twenty odd feet from the bridge exclusive of the " curve 
inward." The doughty Snyder was no infant to be tossed, 
unresistingly, in such a manner. Ordinarily, it would be 
regarded as hardly within the bounds of possibility for a mur- 
derer to throw his victim to such a distance. 

At the time of the occurrence there was no evidence tendirrg 
to show that Snyder either was thrown off from the top of the 
bridge, or threw himself ofif. There were no bruises or marks 
upon his person indicating such a thing, marks that would have 
existed equally in either event. As for the distance the body 
lay from the bridge, that, of itself, did not conclusively prove 
anything; for it was known that water had been let into the 
stream, early that morning, from the dam above, in sufficient 
volume to have moved the body several feet. The body must 
have been moved by the force of the water flowing down the 
stream. But whether it was thus moved or not is immaterial, 
so far as falling from the top of the bridge upon the stony bed 
of the stream below is concerned. His body never was sub- 
jected to such a fall. 

Of course the jury "jumped" to a verdict for the plaintiff. 

JACOB C. WALLIS. 

That any person, sane or insane, should deliberately contem- 
plate and plan self-destruction for the purpose of benefiting 
others, and that such suicidal act should be the outgrowth of a 
cunningly devised scheme to deceive and defraud, seems in- 
credible; yet it is a procedure by no means uncommon in the 
experience of life insurance companies. The investigation of 



SUICIDE. 551 

such cases is usually attended with many obstacles. To the 
credit of human nature, it is found that there is a universal 
unwillingness to accept evidence of self-slaughter — even in the 
absence of any rebutting testimony — and the popular impulse 
is in full accord with the presumption of law upon that point. 
It is to be expected, under such conditions, that the hastily 
conducted inquisitions of coroners tend to conclusions and 
verdicts more in harmony with sentiment than with truth. 
Especially is this apt to be the case when the preparations 
which the suicide has carefully made for the accomplishment 
of his purpose apparently indicate homicide or an accident. 
It was therefore quite natural that a jury composed of " good 
and true" citizens, charged diligently to inquire how and in 
what manner Jacob C. Wallis, late of Johnson County, Mis- 
souri, came to his death, should find that " his death was 
caused by an unknown assassin or assassins, on the 226. day of 
September, 1873." It appeared in evidence that Mr. Wallis, a 
farmer who bore a good character among his neighbors, left 
his house at about one P. M. on the day of his death, for the 
alleged purpose of visiting a neighboring farmer and creditor, 
Mr. Quick, to pay the sum of $80. He was last seen alive as 
he started off on this errand, traveling on horseback in the 
direction of Mr. Quick's residence; and nothing definite is 
known of him afterwards until about four hours later, when 
his dead body was discovered by his daughter Maggie. The 
girl saw her father leave the house and heard him say where 
he was going. Late in the afternoon, as was her custom, she 
started for the purpose of finding the cows. As she was going 
towards the edge of the woods she met her father's horse with 
bridle-rein dragging, and the ring upon the right-hand side of 
the bit broken. She at once mounted the horse and rode home, 
and learning that her father was not there, she rode back to 
the place where she had found the horse loose. She then con- 
tinued along the road in the direction of Mr. Quick's house, 
when she noticed some papers scattered by the roadside. She 
dismounted to see what they were, and found papers and 
envelopes with her father's name written upon them, and also 
found her father's pocketbook, which was "stretched out in 
the road, with no money in it, but some papers." Looking 



552 SUICIDE. 

around, she saw her father lying dead in the bushes, and she 
immediately returned home to make known what had happened. 
In a little while several neighbors had responded to the alarm, 
among whom were two physicians. It was in evidence that 
the death was caused by a gunshot wound involving both 
lungs and the heart, and that the pistol with which the wound 
was inflicted lay forty-five feet distant from the body. The 
pistol was not recognized by any member of the family of 
deceased, and no one had ever seen it in the possession of Mr. 
Wallis. Subsequently it was identified by a gentleman who 
testified that he accidentally lost it on a road in the vicinity, 
some time during the winter of 1870-71, and had known noth- 
ing of it since. The several members of Mr. Wallis's family 
were able to testify that they knew of the purpose of the con- 
templated visit to Mr. Quick, but they did not know, of their 
own knowledge, that Wallis had any money upon his person 
at the time of his leaving home. Mr. Quick was at home all 
that day. He was not looking for the deceased to visit him 
at that time, but had been promised payment of the debt owing 
to him by Wallis, without any definite time being fixed for 
payment. 

The several sons of Mr. Wallis had heard their father speak 
of being apprehensive of assault, and at the inquest an ill- 
defined suspicion seemed to rest upon a certain Bone family 
in connection with the tragedy. The reason for this suspicion 
was substantially as follows: 

Some time before, Mr. Wallis had purchased judgments 
which had been obtained against the several tracts of land 
belonging to a family by the name of Bone, consisting of a 
father and his grown-up sons and sons-in-law. The Bones 
resisted, and litigation ensued. WalHs was successful in the 
courts, thereby acquiring legal possession of the land, together 
with the bitter hatred of the Bones. Wallis's counsel advised 
him to deed back one piece of land of eighty acres on which a 
sister of the Bones was living, conditioned upon all the other 
Bones peaceably retiring from the rest of the property. The 
deed was given and the condition complied with. One day, 
however, two of the younger Bones went into the office of Mr. 
Wallis's counsel at a time when Wallis was present, and threat- 



SUICIDE. 553 

ened vengeance upon both attorney and client. That they 
were capable of executing it in some cowardly manner, no one 
seemed to doubt. They had always been regarded as desperate 
characters. They were border ruffians in the Kansas free state 
warfare, were Quantrell men at a later day, and were uncom- 
promising rebels during the late war. Wallis was known to 
have expressed himself as being in fear of death at their hands, 
and with some show of reason. 

Although there was well-grounded suspicion, it does not 
appear that any steps were taken at the time of the inquest to 
ascertain the whereabouts of the several members of the Bone 
family on the afternoon of Mr. Wallis's death, with the excep- 
tion of taking the evidence of a son-in-law of old Bone. Noth- 
ing of importance was learned from his testimony other than 
that he clearly proved an alibi for himself. 

That a homicide had been committed, no one doubted. The 
examining physicians stated in evidence that, in their opinion, 
a man could not throw a pistol forty-five feet, nor could he 
walk a distance of forty-five feet after receiving such a gunshot 
wound of the heart. 

The general facts of the case, as above related, were quickly 
brought to the knowledge of certain life and accident insurance 
companies, and an investigation concerning them ensued. It 
was found that shortly before his death Mr. Wallis had sought 
and obtained a considerable sum of insurance — an amouri^ 
quite disproportionate to his means for carrying it. It was 
further ascertained and established, beyond question, that no 
member of the Bone family had any guilty knowledge of Mr. 
Wallis's death. The affidavits of good citizens of unimpeach- 
able reputation for truth and veracity showed conclusively 
where each and every member of that family was during the 
afternoon of the day in question. So the story of bloody 
retaliation, vengeance, and murder was shorn of that portion of 
its romance which otherwise would cling to the skeleton of the 
Bones. 

It was also learned that the inquest, though honestly and 
fairly conducted, so far as it went, had been hurried through 
with characteristic haste, and that the evidence was conspicu- 
ously and materially defective through the absence of some of 



554 SUICIDE. 

the most important witnesses. Then, again, it was found that 
the medical evidence had not been clearly understood. The 
physicians who testified did not intend to say that the wound 
which Mr. Wallis sustained was of such a nature as to have 
been instantly fatal, nor immediately overpowering to his 
senses. This feature of the case was all-important for the eluci- 
dation of the whole truth. If Mr. Wallis died of wounds which 
were of such a nature as to have rendered it impossible for him 
to have afterwards placed the pistol forty-five feet distant, then 
the shooting was the act of some other human agency than 
his own. 

Upon a full and careful examination into the location and 
character of the wound, it was found that the bullet entered the 
left side of the chest, between the fifth and sixth ribs, wounded 
the corresponding lung, passed through both ventricles of the 
heart, and entered the right lung, where it lodged. The wound 
was inflicted with a small conoid bullet of about the diameter 
of a buckshot. There does not appear to have been any injury 
to the nervous system other than such as may have been 
attendant upon the shock, while that of itself, from the nature 
of the parts involved, was not necessarily overpowering. From 
appearances disclosed at the autopsy, it was evident he had 
died from loss of blood, the hemorrhage having been profuse 
internally. It was apparent that the wound was a mortal one, 
but that it was one instantaneously fatal was not so clear. 
With such a wound he would not immediately lose his senses, 
nor would he suffer loss of voluntary muscular power until 
faint from loss of blood. Such a condition would rapidly 
ensue, but first he would have several seconds, at least, and not 
unlikely more than a minute. The popular notion that wounds 
of the heart are instantly fatal is altogether erroneous, and not 
supported by facts. 

In the evidence before the coroner, the last persons who saw 
Mr. Wallis alive were the members of his own family. It was 
known that he had been particularly observed by a young man 
who, at the time, was in front of a Mr. Pemberton's house 
when Mr. Wallis rode past. Singularly enough, this highly 
important witness, the last man who saw him living and the 
first man who saw his dead body, was not called to give his 



SUICIDE. 555 

evidence at the inquest. This witness, a man of undoubted 
veracity and integrity, made the following statement: 

I was at work at Mr. Pemberton's the day Mr. Wallis was killed, 
and about one P. M. I saw Mr. Wallis ride past the house, going 
towards Mr. Quick's, and saw him enter the timber only a short 
distance below Mr. Pemberton's house. I was then saddling a horse 
for Miss Nora Pemberton to ride down to Grant village, some five 
or six miles distant, in the direction of and past Mr. Quick's house. 
In a few moments I assisted Nora on her horse, when she, too, 
went down the road — ^the same road that Mr. Wallis had gone a few 
moments before. Mr. Pemberton and I then went to work. I am 
positive no one else rode or passed on that road from the time that 
Mr. Wallis passed to the time that Nora followed him. About five 
P. M. the same day, Maggie Wallis came to Mr. Pemberton's and 
told him and me that she had found her father down in the wood, 
and he was dead. Mr. Pemberton and I drove down to where the 
body was lying, as soon as we possibly could. I got out of 
the wagon and Mr. Pemberton held the horses. The body was in 
sight of, and about twenty-five feet from the road, in a clump of 
bushes. I went to it and found it to be Jacob C. Wallis, lying on 
his back, his face turned a little to the left, and his hat was lying 
two or three feet distant from his head. His right arm was rather 
around a small clump of bushes. The body was lying across a narrow 
stock path leading from the road into the bushes. The left arm was 
by his side, with the hand upon the chest. His face was getting 
purple, and my first impression was, on that account, he had been 
beaten to death. I saw no blood, nor any evidence of there having 
been any struggle, except his vest was torn on the left side near the 
seam, from the bottom upward to near the arm-hole. The ground 
showed no sign of t"here having been any struggle. I looked for this, 
but saw none. I remained by the body until others came. The body 
was still warm when I got there. I opened the coat and then saw 
the rent in the vest and that the shirt was bloody. In a few moments 
afterwards I, with others, began to look for signs by which some 
clue could be obtained, if possible, to detect who committed the deed. 
We looked carefully and examined the ground closely, and could 
find no evidence of there having been any struggle in the vicinity. 
We found in the road, below or beyond the body, the tracks of 
horses — two horses going from and two coming towards and to the 
place in the road opposite where the body was lying. We could 
not trace the tracks farther on this side of the body, for by this 
time there had been several horses and one team (Pemberton's) down 
the road. There was no appearance showing that the body had been 
dragged from the road to the spot where it lay. There were so 
many leaves on the ground, they would have shown it. I saw nothing 
to show that that there had been any persons walking and carrying 



556 SUICIDE. 

a heavy burden, and I think the leaves would have been apt to show 
this also if it had been done. There had been a slight shower of 
rain the night before, and the road was a little soft, so we could 
see all the tracks in the road plainly. There was no mud on the 
clothes of the deceased, not even on his boots. 

Another person says: 

I think I was the third man that arrived at the body. I, with 
others, looked for signs of a struggle, but saw none whatever except 
the torn vest and the buttons being torn off the shirt-collar and shirt- 
bosom. The coat showed marks of the pistol having been placed 
against it when fired, for the cloth was singed, and about the bullet- 
hole were powder-marks also. I examined the road beyond where 
the body lay to see how many tracks we could discover. We found 
only four; two coming and two going. We could easily determine 
this, for it had rained the night before and the ground was soft. We 
could see no signs of the body having been dragged or carried from 
the road to where it was found dead. There was no mud on the 
clothing or boots of deceased. The expression of face was calm and 
showed no sign of deceased having been engaged in mortal combat. 
His face looked as though he was sleeping. 

All of the others who visited the spot where the lx)dy lay 
corroborated the foregoing statements so far as their observa- 
tions extended. 

Miss Nora Pemberton, the young lady alluded to, makes the 
following statement: 

I left home about twenty or thirty minutes past one P. M. of the 
day Mr. Wallis was killed. While I was in the house preparing for 
the ride, I was told to hurry and I would have company. I did not 
then know who was spoken of when told I could have company, 
and I did not ask. I rode to Grant village, about five miles distant 
from our house. The road goes by Mr. Quick's house. Father lives 
on the road leading from Mr. Jacob Wallis's to Mr. Quick's. As 
soon as I started I saw a horse track in the road, as it was a little 
muddy. There was only one track. I am positive of that, for I 
noticed it particularly and wondered at the time who it could be 
ahead of me, going in the same direction, as the track was leading 
that way. The same track I saw when I first started I continued to 
see for half a mile or more past where Mr. Wallis was afterwards 
found dead, and until I struck into another road at a place where 
the road forks. I rode past Mr. Quick's and on to the place where 
I was going, and saw nothing of Mr. Wallis that day. Returning, 
I reached home about 4.30 P. M., and passed by the place in the 
road where Maggie Wallis afterwards found the letters and papers, 
opposite where Mr. Wallis's body was found. I am positive the 



SUICIDE. 557 

papers were not in the road when I passed there, for if they had 
been and I had not seen them, my horse certainly would have done 
so, as he was skittish and would scare easily, and white paper lying 
in the road will always scare him. That would have drawn my 
attention to them. I know they could not have been there when I 
passed. 

It appears by the evidence of these witnesses, in common 
with that of Maggie Wallis, that Mr. WalHs entered the wood 
shortly after one P. M.; that no one had preceded him on 
horseback that day, as the tracks in the road distinctly proved; 
that Nora Pemberton followed immediately afterwards over the 
same road and past the place where his dead body was found, 
and returning home she again passed this spot a little earlier 
than half-past four o'clock; that Maggie in about half an hour 
afterwards discovered the body and called assistance. To all 
appearances, Wallis had been dead but a few moments when 
the parties arrived where the body lay. It further appears that 
Wallis rode past this spot when he went towards Mr. Quick's; 
that he did not keep in the road leading to Mr. Quick's, but 
turned off at the fork ; and that the tracks of two horses going 
from and of two horses coming towards the place where the 
body was found, were the tracks of the horses ridden by Wallis 
and Nora Pemberton. There were no footprints of any other 
horses. 

The evidence further shows that Mr. Wallis left home to go 
directly to the house of Mr. Quick; that he never reached his 
destination; and that he was not lying dead by the roadside 
when Nora Pemberton passed the spot at four o'clock, or later. 
Where was he, and what was he doing, during those three 
hours? Probably the mystery never will be wholly cleared up, 
but we know that he was not in pursuit of the business upon 
which he said he was going. 

At a distance of not more than eighty rods from where the 
shooting occurred, a man and his son were at work quarrying 
rock. The son heard a shot fired at about five o'clock, and 
called his father's attention to the fact at the time, saying that 
somebody was hunting in the woods. The father did not hear 
the firing, as he was down in a stone-pit at the time. They 
both heard the bell of Mr. Wallis's cow at the same time, in the 



558 SUICIDE. 

same woods. They both are positive that they could and 
would have heard shouts or calls for help if Mr. Wallis had 
made any. The shot heard by the young man was, undoubt- 
edly, the one which caused Mr. Wallis's death, and this evi- 
dence fixes the time of shooting at a few minutes prior to the 
discovery of the body by Maggie. 

Mr. Wallis knew that Maggie would be there very soon for 
the cows, and it was learned that he had expressed a hope 
that his body would be quickly found if anything should happen 
to him in the woods. Instances had occurred in that vicinity, 
wherein persons, lying insensible in the woods, had been muti- 
lated by hogs; and that Wallis was apprehensive of such muti- 
lation of his body was evident from his expression of such 
fears to his family and to others. If it should so happen that 
Maggie did not come for the cows at the usual time, Mr. 
Wallis well knew that the old mare, which he rode, would go 
home to its nursing colt, when he would be missed and a 
search quickly instituted. The marks of highway robbery, 
which were scattered so conspicuously in the road near where 
the body lay, served also to arrest attention to the body itself. 
If this was the work of an assassin, it certainly was very effec- 
tual in leading to the prompt finding of the murdered man. 
Had the murderer left his victim at some spot in the woods 
less open to public view, it is certain that the body would have 
been mutilated, if not devoured, by the hogs with which the 
woods were filled. On the other hand, by placing the body in 
the bushes, within full view from the road, it was saved from 
the mutilation which Wallis had stood in fear of, and the 
evidences of murder were thereby retained. 

The rifled pocketbook, the papers and the envelopes which 
were thrown loosely about the roadside, thus served the double 
purpose of pointing out where the body lay, and suggesting 
highway robbery. In one of these envelopes Mr. Wallis was 
supposed to have placed the money which he was carrying to 
Mr. Quick. He had called his wife's attention to a roll of 
bank-bills a little while before he left the house; and he was 
seen to place the letters and envelopes in the inside breast- 
pocket of his coat. Certain facts in connection with this go 
to prove that if there was a robbery it took place prior to the 



SUICIDE. 559 

shooting. The fatal shot was fired directly through this breast- 
pocket without harm to its contents. The small bullet per- 
forated its very central portion, and not a paper therein could 
have escaped it. It is thus shown, conclusively, that the pocket 
wherein the letters and envelopes were carried had been 
emptied prior to the shooting. If robbed at all, he was first 
robbed, then murdered. 

This leads to a consideration of the evidences of a struggle 
and mortal combat. It will be remembered that the iron 
bridle-ring was broken, from which fact it was inferred that 
Wallis had been dragged forcibly from his horse. His shirt 
bosom and collar were found torn open, the buttons being miss- 
ing, and his vest was torn along the seam on the left side, from 
the bottom to near the arm-hole. All these, if occasioned by a 
struggle with an assassin, indicate a prolonged struggle. This 
condition would lead us to expect other visible signs of assault 
and violence, but upon the evidence of the examining physi- 
cians, there were none whatever. When they first saw the body 
it had not been disturbed, but lay upon the ground as when 
first discovered. The face was placid, and upon a careful 
inspection they found absolutely no mark of violence upon the 
person of the deceased, other than the bullet wound. Not a 
scratch, nor a bruise, nor a finger-mark upon the face, throat, 
or hands of a man supposed to have been killed after a pro- 
tracted struggle, wherein his clothes were torn, and his horse's 
bridle broken in the resistance he had made ! He lay upon his 
back, with his arms by his side, and his old straw hat was 
lying two or three feet distant from his head. If an assassin 
had violently torn him from his horse, robbed him, and then 
dragged his dead body into the bushes, why was that old hat 
afterwards carried and tenderly placed near his head? 

There is much significance in the evidence of the men who 
instituted a careful search for some clew whereby the supposed 
murderer might be tracked and followed. They looked care- 
fully, and examined the ground closely, and could find no evi- 
dence of there having been a struggle in the vicinity. They 
first supposed the body had been dragged or carried to where 
it lay, but on examination found no mud on the clothes, not 
even on the boots, and there being no disturbance of the leaves, 



560 SUICIDE. 

they came to the irresistible conclusion that it was not possible 
for the body to have been dragged. Additional search was 
then made to find signs of persons recently carrying a heavy 
burden. There were none whatever. This search was imme- 
diately after the death and while the body was yet warm. 
Nobody had then arrived to efface or disturb such indications, 
had there been any. Evidently the body had not been stirred 
since its death. 

The place where the body lay was a cluster of swamp dog- 
wood, some ten or fifteen feet in height, and the spot where the 
pistol was found was some forty-five feet farther in the woods. 
It was an easy toss for a well man to throw the pistol over the 
bushes to that distance. There is no reasonable doubt of Mr. 
Wallis having lived long enough to be able to do it. The pistol 
had a revolving cylinder, with six chambers for small metallic 
cartridges. When found, all were loaded but one, which one 
contained the shell of a recently discharged bullet. There cer- 
tainly was no good reason why an assassin should throw away 
his loaded pistol in this manner. If it was to be left for the 
purpose of giving the deed a coloring of suicide, then, assur- 
edly, it would have been much more sensible and natural to 
leave it near the body, than to throw it where it was not likely 
to be found at all. 

No wound which a suicide may inflict is distinctively charac- 
teristic of suicide, as a similar wound may be made at the hands 
of an assailant. But it is nevertheless true that there is a selec- 
tion of vital points, usually, in suicidal wounds, and gunshot 
wounds in the vicinity of the heart are among the most frequent. 
In such instances suicides almost invariably place the muzzle of 
the weapon in close proximity with the walls of the chest, and 
in this case it is evident that the little pistol was held directly 
against the clothing, which showed powder-marks and scorch- 
ing. The cartridge was so small that the combustion of powder 
could not have left traces of burning at a distance of more 
than one or two inches. 

We may now consider the errand upon which Mr. Wallis went, 
as alleged. The evidence of each member of his family showed 
that they all knew the purpose of his going from home that 
afternoon. Their attention, individually, was called to the fact 



SUICIDE. 561 

by Wallis himself, who gave each one to understand that he 
was going to Mr. Quick's to pay $80 in money. One of the 
pecuHar ear-marks which indicate fraud in cases of this char- 
acter, is the overwrought pains which the principal actor 
takes to prepare the way for a ready explanation of what other- 
wise would be mysterious. We might cite, in illustration, a 
certain Connelly case in Kentucky, where the party exhibited 
his unprecedented roll of greenbacks to divers parties on the 
morning of his taking of¥; the memoranda left by Colvocoresses 
to show that he was en route to New York, to deposit with 
bankers there a large sum of money; the pains Savage took to 
write his wife that he had drawn a large sum of money that 
day from his mythical friend who had just sailed for Europe; 
and similar characteristic features of " paving the way," as mani- 
fested in the Goss-Udderzook affair, the Snyder case, and other 
well-known insurance cases. In this instance the feature was 
conspicuously noticeable all through the evidence before the 
coroner. Mr. Wallis not only informed his wife of the nature 
of his errand, but called her attention to the envelope in which 
he placed the money. She saw the* bills sufficiently to simply 
notice they were bank-notes, but gave the matter no further 
thought at the time. 

It was clearly established that Mr. Wallis could have been 
in possession of no such sum of money at the time, nor could 
he then obtain it in any legitimate manner. He had exhausted 
every resource, had borrowed whenever, wherever, and from 
whomsoever he could. His creditors were urgent, and legal 
service threatened. His property was mortgaged for more than 
it would bring at any kind of sale. It appeared that he could 
have gone but a few days more without legal steps being taken 
against him, and such steps once taken, all that he had was 
irretrievably lost and his family destitute. 

Among his creditors was the postmaster of an adjoining 
town. The amount of indebtedness was, originally, $500, but 
accrued interest had increased it to between $600 and $700. 
A short time before Mr. Wallis's death this creditor demanded 
payment or satisfactory security, and a new note was made out, 
including interest, which note Wallis took home with him, 
promising to obtain, as security, the indorsement of a neighbor 



562 SUICIDE. 

of his. Wallis did not attend to this business, as promised, but 
wrote his creditor, under date of September 6th, that he had 
met with an accident on his way home, being thrown out of his 
wagon, and thereby lost the note from his pocket. At that 
date, September 6th, according to the tenor of his letter, he was 
unable to pay anything on the note, and yet he went to the 
same town a week afterward, and took out $3,000 additional 
life insurance, the quarterly premium on which was about $80. 
It is true that he did not pay this premium at that time, and 
true that he then could not have done so. He did subsequently 
pay it, as will hereinafter appear. 

He was not able to pay in full his first quarterly premium 
on a $9,000 life policy which he had obtained a few weeks 
previous to his death, but left a balance of $7.50, which the 
insurance agent advanced for him, which debt remained unpaid 
at the time of his death. The agent wrote to Mr. Wallis dun- 
ning him for the $7.50, and received in reply the following 
letter, written by a son of Mr. WalHs, at the latter's request: 

Rose Hill, Mo., Aug. 2, 1873. 
Dear Sir. — Your letter came to hand a day or two ago, and con- 
tents noted. Our harvesting, just over, has taken all the money we 
had on hand, for help, etc., but as soon as we get some threshing 
done, will market some and send the amount you spoke of. 

Respectfully, 
C. S. Wallis. 

When the threshing was done the wheat was sold in several 
small lots as threshed, and the whole netted $110, which Mr. 
Wallis received cash for. This fact is verified by an examina- 
tion of Mr. Wallis's account-books which were kept by one 
of his sons. Of this wheat money Wallis sent $80 by express 
to pay the first quarterly premium on the $3,000 life policy 
which he recently had appUed for. This left him $30 cash on 
hand, and it could not be shown that he received or paid out 
$10 from that time to the day of his death. 

Mrs. Wallis noticed that her husband had bank-bills in his 
hand when he told her that he was going to pay Mr. Quick 
$80. Shortly after his death, his son Charles examined a box 
in the house where his father was known sometimes to place 
money and papers of value, and therein found the sum of 



SUICIDE. 563 

$31.25. Doubtless this sum was the money which Mrs. WalHs 
saw, and this is just about the sum he would have had left 
from the sale of his wheat. No money was found on his dead 
body — of course not. The last cent he had in the world was 
left by him in that box in his house. 

Such was the financial condition of this man who had just 
taken out insurances upon his life, the annual premiums of 
which would amount to $1,100. He could not have paid a 
second quarterly instalment of it — he had not fully paid the 
first. And yet, for reasons he alone best knew, this hopelessly 
insolvent debtor made and executed a will. Upon investiga- 
tion the fact was transparent that he was for several months 
planning this suicide, and as he intended to leave his estate 
solvent through the sums insured on his life, he therefore saw 
fit to dispose of the property as he wished it to go. The will 
was written about eight weeks prior to his death, and is peculiar 
in its minutiae and details. He enumerates and devises his 
personal property then on hand, even to ten bushels of potatoes, 
one broad hoe and one garden rake. 

In the history of his insurance, it appears that Mr. Wallis, 
two months before his death, applied for and obtained a $9,000 
life policy in the Travelers Insurance Company, and soon 
afterwards obtained a $5,000 accident policy in the same com- 
pany; the latter policy being written at the office of a local 
agency. The head office of the Travelers directed the imme- 
diate cancellation of the accident policy, and Wallis then pur- 
chased two accident insurance tickets of $3,000 each, issued by 
the Railway Passengers Assurance Company. He took the 
accident insurance tickets to his former legal adviser, and asked 
to have them placed in the lawyer's safe, saying that he had 
purchased this insurance to cover a business trip to Philadel- 
phia. The lawyer took the tickets, as requested, remarking to 
Wallis at the same time that it would be much better for him to 
have a full life insurance policy for $3,000, explaining to him, 
in his apparent ignorance of the facts, that the tickets would 
cover loss by death under comparatively limited conditions, 
while the probabilities of his death by disease were vastly 
greikter than by accident. Mr. Wallis listened to this advice 
with the childlike innocence of Ah Sin, and acting upon it. at 



564 SUICIDE. 

once applied for the $3,000 life policy above mentioned, it being 
written by the Covenant Mutual Life Insurance Company. 
Mr. Wallis did not give his attorney the slightest intimation 
that he, at that very time, held a $9,000 life policy in the Trav- 
elers. His reticence upon the subject, under the circumstances, 
is significant of his fraudulent intentions. Indeed, all the cir- 
cumstances surrounding the case, whether grouped as a whole 
or examined in detail, conclusively prove that the death of 
Wallis was the result of a settled and deliberate purpose to 
destroy himself and defraud the insurance companies. 

A HUNGARIAN NOBLEMAN'S STRATAGEM. 

Several years ago a nobleman, well known in sporting circles 
as a horseman and hunter, named Baron Bela Olnyi, triumphed 
over a crowd of rivals, and bore home as his bride the rich and 

beautiful baroness, Irma P yi. Baron Bela was at that 

time a wealthy landed proprietor, and was able to indulge to 
the full all his inclinations and whims. His married life was a 
happy one. Years followed one after the other, but they were 
not all alike. The beautiful baroness, as time wore on, pre- 
sented her spouse with six of the dearest little barons and 
baronesses that ever were seen, and Baron Bela began to dab- 
ble in speculations. It was the old, old story, that has been 
repeated a thousand times. Toward the end of 1874, the 
baron's vast possessions, which were worth nearly two millions, 
had been sold, and the family mansion in Pesth was mortgaged 
to its last brick. Of all this the fair baroness was kept in com- 
plete ignorance, and the family establishment was maintained 
in its usual style. 

When the baron realized that he was completely ruined, and 
that all that was left was his wife's property, which could not 
be touched, he formed a singular resolution. He got his life 
insured in five dififerent companies for one hundred thousand 
gulden in each, the terms being that this amount should be paid 
over to his family in case he should die within a year. None 
of the insurance companies objected to pocketing the premium 
of two thousand florins from a man just forty-five years of age, 
in the full vigor of life and in exuberant health. 

The day, however, Baron Bela had the last policy in his 



SUICIDE. 565 

pocket, he entered upon an entirely different course of life. 
He had been a man who never missed a race or a hunt, who 
went to the club every day, and regularly took his drive or ride 
on horseback in the park; now he was to be seen nowhere in 
company, not even by his dearest friends. Nor did he remain 
at home in the bosom of his family. He left his house every 
morning early, and only returned in time for dinner. After 
dinner he disappear A again, and remained absent often until 
midnight. During all this time nobody knew where he kept 
himself secluded. 

The change in his external appearance was not less remark- 
able. He had previously been getting rather stout. He now 
began to lose flesh. His cheeks, which had been florid, 
changed to an unhealthy paleness, his eyes lost their bright- 
ness and were surrounded with heavy circles of blue, his face 
became haggard, and his strong manly voice became cracked 
and feeble. When these symptoms of dangerous disease mul- 
tiplied in such a striking manner, the friends that occasionally 
visited him and his wife endeavored to persuade him to take 
medical advice, and to explain his mysterious absences. His 
answer was a positive refusal. Finally, in October, the physical 
constitution, once so strong, could no longer withstand the 
agency so potent for evil which was undermining it, and Baron 
Bela was compelled to take to his bed. Physicians were called 
in. They shook their heads ominously, and declared that it 
was a case of galloping consumption, that the disease had 
already reached a stage in which all human aid was in vain. 
Hardly fourteen days later the sufferings of the poor baron 
were in fact terminated by death. After his death a will was 
found, by which he bequeathed to his wife his life insurance 
policies, and acquainted her with the fact of the loss of his 
entire fortune. No other course was open for the baroness 
except to prefer her claims for the half million due on the 
policies through her solicitor. The solicitor, however, imme- 
diately ran against difficulties. It was thought to be incredible 
that a man who had been examined only ten months before 
by five physicians, and pronounced in good health, could have 
died of the disease mentioned. The five companies came to 
the conclusion that a plan of slow suicide had been deliberately 
adopted, and they all refused payment of the claims. 



566 SUICIDE. 

The companies interested went* further, and undertook to 
penetrate the mystery of the daily absences of the baron, of 
which they had previously got wind. After long and extensive 
researches, they finally ascertained that early in January the 
baron had hired a small apartment in a dirty, narrow street in a 
remote quarter of the city, and twice each day remained in it 
for a considerable time. The neighbors never saw him hold 
any intercourse with any one. The rent of the apartment had 
been paid up to the end of December, and after the baron's 
death it had been locked up. To clear up the hidden mystery 
within that room, it was necessary to invoke the arm of the 
law. Upon proper evidence a warrant was issued, the fatal 
door was opened by a locksmith, and in breathless anxiety the 
room was entered. A comfortable sofa, a table, two chairs, 
and two chests constituted the entire furniture. Great was the 
amazement when the two chests were opened. The first con- 
tained a well-worn dressing-gown, a pair of loose Turkish 
trousers, a fez, and about ten or twelve long tobacco pipes. 
The second chest was divided into square compartments, and 
there were left in it about two hundred foreign cigars, of the 
government brand, costing two kreutzers each, and about half 
a pound of what is known in the trade as common smoking 
tobacco. From the wrappers found in the lower compart- 
ments it appeared that the baron had smoked up about three 
thousand five hundred of these two kreutzer cigars, and about 
a hundred weight of the common trade tobacco. 

At the request of the representatives of the insurance com- 
panies, a proper record was made of the facts discovered; and 
thereupon the companies, under the circumstances, justified 
their refusal to pay the amount insured by referring to the pro- 
vision in the policies by virtue of which the contract was to 
become null and void in the event of suicide. The counsel 
for the baroness urged, in reply, that smoking ten or fifteen 
two-kreutzer cigars a day could hardly be denominated an 
attempt at suicide. Chemical and medical investigations were 
instituted by both parties, and the manag'ers of the royal 
tobacco factory were called upon for an opinion. The cause 
of his death was believed to have been due to saturation with 
nicotine, taken into his system in poisonous quantities through 
the process of smoking. 



SUICIDE. 567 

THE RUNK CASE IN PHILADELPHIA. 

The suit of A. Howard Ritter, Executor of the estate of 
WilHam M. Runk, deceased, against the Mutual Life Insurance 
Company of New York, in the United States Circuit Court, 
Philadelphia, before Judge Butler, at the April term, 1895, 
attracted widespread attention because of the social and busi- 
ness prominence of a man who committed suicide, while clearly 
and admittedly sane, in order to defraud life insurance com- 
panies out of a large amount of money. The main points in 
the case, as detailed in the Insurance Register, are as follows: 

William M. Runk was a well known merchant of Phila- 
delphia. He had been known for a number of years as a 
large insurer. He had had insurance on his life for from five to 
ten years to an amount approximating $300,000. The testi- 
mony at the trial showed his annual income to be about $8,500. 
In the winter of 1891 and 1892 he placed $200,000 additional 
on his life. At this time he stood high in business, social and 
religious circles, yet it was conclusively proved on the trial 
that he had been an embezzler for six or eight years prior to 
his death; that he had been using for his private purposes 
trust funds in his possession; had, by his own confession, been 
defrauding his firm for at least two years, and was completely 
overwhelmed with debt. On the audit of the executor's ac- 
count in the Orphans' Court, some $210,000 of claims were 
proven against his estate. There was due to one creditor, 
William Weightman, $20,000 that was secured by $30,000 of 
insurance. Another creditor, Mrs. Barcroft, the aunt of Mr. 
Runk, who did not prove her claim against the estate, collected 
$135,000 out of insurance which had been assigned to her 
as collateral. Against these debts the executor had in his 
hands $152,000, of which $148,000 was derived from insur- 
ance, representing the face value of policies to the amount 
of $170,000. It was admitted by Mr. Ritter, the executor, on 
the witness stand, that the estate consisted almost wholly of 
insurance; that there was little or no equity in the real estate 
of the decedent, and that the insurance which was in litigation 
almost corresponded in amount with the unpaid debts. 

The family of Mr. Runk had therefore practically no interest 
in the litigation, which was in effect between the creditors on 



568 SUICIDE. 

the one hand and the companies on the other. The prepara- 
tions which Mr. Runk made for self-destruction were starthng. 
He left his store about 2 o'clock on the day of his death, after 
having taken care that very morning to send his check by 
messenger and to pay an insurance premium then due. He 
notified his confidential messenger, Mr. Wm. M. Nice, to be at 
his country house that evening, and indicated by what train he 
should come, telling him he would have something then for 
him to attend to. He went to his home, told his family that 
he had writing to do that afternoon, spent the afternoon in 
writing, and after supper with his family, went out to his 
stable and shot himself. He had written six letters, four of 
which were placed in evidence at the trial. One of these was 
to the messenger he referred to, and asking him to see that 
he had a quiet funeral and not to talk to anybody. Another 
was to Mrs. Barcroft, his largest creditor, the one who held 
life insurance collateral, asking pardon for the disgrace that 
he was bringing upon her, she being a relative, and saying 
that it was the only way in which he could pay his indebted- 
ness to her. He admitted also that his present condition was 
due to speculation. The third letter was to Air. J. G. Dar- 
lington, his partner, in which he told him of the misuse of the 
firm funds, and said that he deserved all the punishment he 
would get, but that he wished his debts paid, and only the 
sacrifice of his life would do it. He named his executor, and 
stated that he had left instructions that the firm defalcation 
should be paid out of the first moneys received from the insur- 
ance. The fourth letter was to his executor, and gave him 
explicit and detailed instructions in regard to the settlement 
of his affairs; recounted his various debts, shortages and defal- 
cations, and directed him to pay his firm defalcation out of the 
first insurance money received. He gave him also a detailed 
account of his relations with the Protestant Episcopal City 
Mission, a large charity, of w^hich he had been treasurer, and 
gave him an itemized list of the securities of this charity, with 
the statement of what had been done with each one. This 
letter and memorandum occupied four or five foolscap pages, 
and showed the utmost care and precision in its preparation. 
It was testified also on the trial that the facts he stated were 



SUICIDE. 569 

all substantially correct. There were two other letters, one 
of which had been destroyed by its receiver, and the other 
was not produced on the trial. 

It should be noted also that all of the policies which were 
disputed were policies issued within the last year of Mr. Runk's 
life, and were all issued upon applications containing the usual 
" sane or insane " suicide clause limited to two years. By some 
oversight no copies of the applications were attached to the 
policies. It was practically admitted that with the whole con- 
tract before the court, the plaintiff had no standing whatever. 
They objected, successfully in the Mutual Life case, to the 
admission of the applications in evidence, basing their objec- 
tion on the Pennsylvania statute of 1881, which requires a 
copy of the application to be attached to or made a part of 
the policies. 

The Mutual Life case was therefore tried squarely on the 
policy without any suicide clause, and the question was brought 
squarely up for decision, whether or not suicide by a sane 
man was not of itself a fraud on the insurer. 

The case of the same plaintiff against the Home Life Insur- 
ance Company was placed on trial immediately after that of 
the Mutual Life was given to the jury. It occupied the 
remainder of the day, and just before the adjournment of the 
court, the plaintiff was called upon to submit his evidence in 
rebuttal. Surprised at the charge of the court in the case of 
the Mutual Life, he asked and was granted the indulgence of 
the court until its next sitting on the following Monday. The 
jury rendered a verdict in favor of the Mutual Life at the open- 
ing of the court on the 8th inst. The plaintiff suffered a 
voluntary non-suit and thus for the present abandoned the 
claim against the Home Life. 

Copies of letters referred to in the foregoing statement: 

A. H. RiTTER, Esq. 

My Dear Friend. — In one of the early clauses of my will I direct 
all my debts and loans shall be paid. 

I will try to enumerate the indebtedness in the order to be paid. 

First. — My account with the firm is overdrawn $86,000, which I 
want to replace with the first insurance amount you receive. 

Second. — I left in the small closet in the safe a list of the amounts 
I owe to make the P. E. City Mission account g-ood; $.:o.ooo is in 
notes of $10,000 each, signed by D. R. & Co., and endorsed Mary 



570 SUICIDE. 

A. Barcroft, this I owe and please pay. Then several securities have 
matured and I owe for them as enumerated. These are also referred 
to: I have some in loan with Beneficial Saving Fund Society and 
Pa. Co. Please redeem and restore. 

Third. — I owe Mrs. Barcroft $96,000, and $30,000 in securities, for 
which she holds life insurance policies. Please adjust them. 

The $10,000— B. & P. bonds, are, I think, at Beneficial S. F. 
" 12,000— N. & W. " 
5,000— P. & R. " 
5,000— " $3,000 Hilbreth, Farr & Co., N. Y. 

Philadelphia office, C. D. Barney & Co. 
$2,000, Tucker & Co., Philadelphia. 

Of course $126,000 or $128,000 will be arranged with insurance 
money. 

Fourth. — I have accounts with: 

W. G. Hopper & Co., Philadelphia. 

R. E. Tucker & Co., Philadelphia. 

Bickley, Lee & Johnson, New York; Philadelphia ofifice, 426 Library. 

Hilbreth, Farr & Co., New York; Philadelphia of^ce, C. D. Barney 
& Co. 

Charles Minzesheimer, New York; Philadelphia office. Third and 
Chestnut. 

I have marked on each account accompanying this where the 
securities belong that they hold. 

Fifth. — This should be third, so I order it paid. I owe my mother 
52 shares P. R. R. Co. and twelve shares L. V. R. R. Co. Please 
buy and turn over to her. 

Sixth. — I owe Jennie C. Runk 30 shares P. R. R. Co., with Hopper 
& Co. Please return to her. 

Seventh. — Miss Lena Giles, care C. S. Bucklin, Keyport, New Jersey, 
has $6,000 note of D. R. & Co. This I owe personally. Please pay. 
Interest was paid to June ist. 

Eighth. — I owe Mr. Weightman $20,000. He holds $30,000 insur- 
ance, much of it paid up. 

All submitted for your guidance, 

W. M. RUNK. 

I owe for July income and August income City Mission. Large 
black book shows also $950, as shown by 3 checks in drawer of table 
in ofifice. You will B Bk. book I have $2,500 loan on stock there. 
Lookout for two notes there. See back of check book. Two 25 
shares of F. B. Stock, with J. M. Lockwood & Co., belongs to 
D. R. & Co. 

Then follows a list of the insurances upon his life, after 
which he gives a list of securities, and a statement as to where 
they are deposited, after which Mr. Runk designates, over his 
own signature, the amounts due to the P. E. City Mission, 
which aggregated $54,100. 

This letter was handed to Mr. Ritter by Mr. Darlington 
about three days after the death of Mr. Runk. 



SUICIDE. 571 

The following letter was received by Mr. Joseph G. Dar- 
lington. It was given to him by WilHam H. Nice, an employee 
of Darlington & Runk, on the day after Mr. Runk's death: 

Dear Joseph: — I have grossly deceived you, and can only pay my 
debts by my life. The Girard bank is overdrawn $26,000; F. & M., 
$20,000; N. A., $18,000; Tradesmans, $16,000, and Fourth Street, 
$6,000; makes $86,000. 

To make these accounts good you will find checks drawn and not 
sent in Arthur's hands in compartment in safe, my top corner closet 
in an envelope. These checks, with balance in each book, have kept 
the showing far too good. 

Howard Ritter is my executor, and I have given him instructions 
to make this $86,000 good from my first insurance payment. The 
moneys I loaned he is to pay, and the memorandum in Farr's small 
book charged to me. 

This is a sad ending of a promising life, but I deserve all the pun- 
ishment I may get, only I feel my debts must be paid. This sacrifice 
will do it, and only this. I was faithful until two years ago. Forgive 
me. Don't publish this. 

William. 

Tuesday. Don't blame Farr, for he is innocent. 

The letter received by Mr. Nice was as follows: 

Landeillo. 
William: — Do all you can for Mrs. Runk, and see that I have a 
quiet funeral. I am driven to this, but I have tried to be a friend 
to you. Don't talk to any one. 

Yours truly, 
Tuesday, Oct. 6, 1892. William M. Runk. 

Mrs. Mary Barcroft received the following letter: 

Landeillo, St. David's, Pa. 

My Dear Aunt Mary: — Forgive me for the disgrace I bring on 
you, but it is the only way I can pay my indebtedness to you. A. 
Howard Ritter will attend to all my afifairs with you. You have 
always told me my mind was not strong. I have been led astray, 
have been infatuated with speculation, and lost. I work too hard, I 
am wild, but cannot recover now. Thank you for all you have been 
to me in every way. Forgive me. 

Affectionately, 

Tuesday, Oct. 6. William, 

CHARGE OF THE COURT. 

Gentlemen of the Jury: — This case, as has been said to you, 
is one of a great deal of importance, one which deserves your very 
careful attention, and one which can only be decided justly by under- 
standing the law that governs it, and by adhering strictly to the 
evidence. 



572 SUICIDE. 

As frequently occurs, a good deal of testimony has been heard, 
and several questions have been raised, which will be found, in the 
view the Court now takes of the case, to be entirely unimportant. 
I only regret that we could not know at the outset how the case 
would present itself to our minds at the close, so that we might have 
avoided the unnecessary expenditure of time and unnecessary taxing 
of your strength and patience, and devoted ourselves to what now 
turns out to be the consideration on which the case must be decided. 

Counsel for plaintiit have presented to the Court several points on 
which we are asked to charge, for the purpose of getting their view 
of the law before you. The plaintiff's first, second, and third points 
are disaffirmed. The fourth is also disaflirmed, for the reasons given 
in answering the defendant's first point, of which I will speak directly. 

The fifth point reads as follows: 

" If one whose life is insured intentionally kills himself when his 
reasoning faculties are so far impaired by insanity that he is unable 
to understand the moral character of his act, even if he does under- 
stand its physical nature, consequence and effect, such self-destruc- 
tion will not of itself prevent recovery upon the policies." 

This is affirmed. I will say, however, that we must understand 
what is meant and intended by the term " moral character of his 
act." It is a term which has been used by the courts, and is cor- 
rectly inserted in the point; but it is a term which might be misun- 
derstood. 

We are not to enter the domain of metaphysics in determining 
what constitutes insanity, so far as the subject is involved in this 
case. If ]\Ir. Runk understood what he was doing, and the conse- 
quences of his act or acts, to himself as well as to others, in other 
words, if he understood, as a man of sound mind would, the conse- 
quences to follow from his contemplated suicide, to himself, his char- 
acter, his family and others, and was able to comprehend the wrong- 
fulness of what he was about to do, as a sane man would, then he 
is to be regarded by you as sane. Otherwise he is not. 

The defendant's first point reads as follows: 

" There can be no recovery by the estate of a dead man of the 
amount of policies of insurance upon his life, if he takes his own 
life designedly, whilst of sound mind." 

This point is affirmed. 

The defendant's first point, which I have just read to you and 
affirmed, and the plaintiff's fourth point, which I have disaffirmed, 
raise the same question; and it is one of very great difficulty. It is 
very remarkable that the question has never been directly passed upon 
by any court of last resort, nor, so far as has been discovered, by 
any other, in this country or in England. 

When the points were presented I said in your presence that in the 
absence of authority, or of custom on the part of insurance com- 
panies or in the business of insuring bearing on the subject, I would 



SUICIDE. 573 

feel little hesitation in holding that suicide by the insured, while in 
a sane condition of mind, constitutes a defense to the payment of the 
policy; but that I inclined to believe there was authority to the con- 
trary. It is conceded, however, that there is nothing to be found 
on the subject but dicta, and these are conflicting; and there is no evi- 
dence before the Court of any custom in the business of insurance 
bearing on this subject. 

I regret that I must pass on the question without opportunity for 
examination or reflection. It seems to me, however, that every con- 
tract of life insurance contains an implied condition that the insured 
will not intentionally terminate his life, but that the insurer shall have 
the benefit of the chances of its continuance until terminated in the 
natural, ordinary course of events. It is on these chances that the 
premium is calculated and based, and the contract is founded. It 
cannot be doubted that if one having a policy on his buildings, 
insuring against fire, should intentionally burn them, his act would 
be a defense to the policy: nor that one taking a policy on the life 
of his debtor, whom he subsequently murders, cannot recover the 
insurance. In principle I am unable to distinguish these cases from 
that where the insured commits suicide. The fraud on the insurer 
seems to be as clear in the latter case as in either of the others. 

Additional reasons: 

"A different construction of the policy would seem to make it a 
contract to pay the insurance immediately if the insured commits 
suicide; thus offering an inducement to commit this act. If the 
insured lives out the ordinary term of life, the time of payment ma}^ 
be very remote, and therefore the inducement to commit suicide is 
very great if payment follows this event. Of course no insurer would 
intentionally enter into such a contract; it would be destruction of 
its interests. His premiums are calculated, and his prospect of gain is 
based on the insured's chances of life under ordinary circumstances; 
and if the latter may render the insurance payable immediately by 
committing suicide, the former is completely at his mercy. If, how- 
ever, an insurer should enter Into such a contract, the law would 
declare it void, because of its violation of public policy. It would 
seem, in effect, to be a contract to pay money for the commission 
of suicide." 

If suicide results from insanity it is not, in legal contemplation. 
the intentional act of the insured. What constitutes insanity, in the 
sense in which we are using the term, has been described to you, 
and need not be repeated. If this man understood the consequences 
and effects of what he was doing or contemplating, to himself and 
to others; if he understood the wrongfulness of it, as a sane man 
would, then he was sane, so far as we have occasion to consider the 
subject, otherwise he was not. 

Here the insured committed suicide, and. as the evidence shows, 
did it for the purpose, as expressed in his communication to the 



574 SUICIDE. 

executor of his will, as well as in letters written to his aunt and 
his partner, of enabling the executor to recover on the policies, and 
use the money to pay his obligations. I therefore charge you that 
if he was in a sane condition of mind at the time, as I have described, 
able to understand the moral character and consequences of his act, 
his suicide is a defense to this suit. 

The only question, therefore, for consideration is this question of 
sanity. There is nothing else in the case. That he committed sui- 
cide, and committed it with a view to the collection of this money 
from the insurance companies and having it applied to the payment 
of his obligations, is not controverted, and not controvertible. It 
is shown by his own declaration, possibly not verbal, but written. 
The only question, therefore, is whether or not he was in a sane con- 
dition of mind, or whether his mind was so impaired that he could 
not, as I have described, properly comprehend and understand the 
character and consequences of the act he was about to commit. 

In the absence of evidence on the subject he must be presumed 
to have been sane. The presumption of sanity is not overthrown by 
the act of committing suicide. Suicide may be used as evidence of 
insanity, but, standing alone, it is not sufficient to establish it. It 
is sometimes thoughtlessly said, if a man commits a high crime or 
takes his life, that he was insane, he was crazy. The fact that a 
man commits a high crime is not evidence of insanity, and the fact 
that he takes his life does not of itself overthrow the presumption of 
sanity. There must be something more than this. 

Therefore we start with the presumption of sanity in the defendant's 
favor, and the burden of showing insanity on the plaintiff. 

You have heard the evidence on the subject and the comments of 
counsel respecting it, and from this you must determine how the 
question should be decided. I believe the wife and sister alone 
expressed an opinion that his mind was " unbalanced." Whether 
either of them formed this opinion before his death I am uncertain. 
The wife said she did not. If the opinion is based on the fact alone 
that he committed suicide, it is of no value. If it is based on this 
fact and his previous conduct, condition or conversation, it may and 
should be considered; its value still is for you. 

These witnesses, together with two or three others, and probably 
more, you will remember, testified to his conversation, his conduct, 
his nervousness, the change in his appearance, and so on, shortly 
before his death. You must judge in how far this testimony tends 
to show an insane condition of mind, such as I have described. 
Might or might not the natural worry and distress occasioned by 
his unfortunate circumstances and the contemplation of self-destruc- 
tion as a means of relief account for his conduct and appearance, 
without the existence of such insanity? 

On the other hand, the defendant has called your attention on this 
subject to the fact that he conducted the business of his firm during 



SUICIDE. 575 

his partner's absence and up to within a very short time of his death; 
and you have seen how methodically he prepared for his end, the 
letters he wrote, the instructions prepared for his executor, and 
so on. 

Now from all the evidence on the "subject (and your attention has 
been very fully called to it by counsel, and there need be no repeti- 
tion of it) you must determine the question of sanity. 

While I thus submit the question, and remind you that the respon- 
sibility of deciding it rests upon you alone, I consider it a duty to 
say that I do not regard the evidence on which the plaintiff relies as 
strong. It may be sufficient; that is a question entirely for you. 

If you find him to have been insane, as I have described, your ver- 
dict will be for the plaintiff. Otherwise, it will be for the defendant. 

There is nothing more that I need say. I can render you no 
further assistance. I will repeat, -you must be very careful to guard 
your minds against the influence of sympathy or prejudice. Each 
of the parties is entitled to equal consideration at your hands. If 
you are not guided and controlled by the law as stated by the 
Court, and the evidence as heard here, you will do great wrong to 
the parties and wrong to yourselves. 

(Counsel for plaintiff except to the disafi(irmance of the first, second 
and third points submitted on behalf of plaintiff; 

Also to the disaffirmance of the fourth point submitted on behalf 
of plaintiff, and to the answer to said fourth point; 

Also to the answer of the Court affirming the fifth point submitted on 
behalf of plaintiff; 

Also to that part of the charge where the Court says: 

" I therefore charge you that if he was in a sane condition of mind 
at the time, as I have described, able to understand the moral char- 
acter and consequences of his act, his suicide is a defense to this suit." 

Also to that part of the charge of the Court saying that suicide 
standing alone is not sufficient to establish insanity, and if the opinion 
is based on that fact alone, it is of no value. 

Also to that part of the charge where the Court says: "While I 
thus submit the question, and remind you that the responsibility of 
deciding it rests upon you alone, I consider it as a duty to say that 
I do not regard the evidence on which the plaintiff relies as strong.") 

The points submitted on behalf of plaintiff are as follows: 

1. The evidence is not sufficient to warrant the jury in finding 
that the deceased entered into the contracts of insurance evidenced 
by the policies sued upon with the intention of defrauding the com- 
pany defendant issuing the same. 

2. The evidence is not sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that 
the deceased entered into the said contracts of insurance with the 
intention of committing suicide. 



576 SUICIDE. 

3. The evidence upon the part of the defendant does not warrant 
any inference of fact which constitutes a defense in law to the plain- 
tiff's right to recover the amount due upon the said policies. 

4. The mere fact that the insured committed suicide does not, 
standing alone, avoid the policies, there being no condition to that 
effect in the policies. 

Terry's case, 15 Wall. 586. 

5. If one whose life is insured, intentionally kills himself when 
his reasoning faculties are so far impaired by insanity that he is 
unable to understand the moral character of his act, even if he does 
understand its physical nature, consequence and effect, such self- 
destruction will not of itself prevent recovery upon the policies. 

John Hampton Barnes, 
Richard C. Dale, 
George Tucker Bispham, 

Attorneys for Plai7itiff, 

The points submitted on behalf of defendant are as follows: 

1. There can be no recovery by the estate of a dead man, of the 
amount of policies of insurance upon his life, if he takes his own 
life designedly whilst of sound mind. 

2. If you find that Runk committed suicide when he was of sound 
mind, being morally and mentally conscious of the act he was about 
to commit, of its consequences, and of its nature, with the deliberate 
intent to secure to his estate and to his creditors, the amount of the 
policies sued upon, there can be no recovery. 

3. If you find that Runk obtained the policies of insurance sued 
upon, at a time when he was insolvent and an embezzler, with the 
intent thereby to secure, in case of his death, from the defendant, the 
fund with which to pay those to whom he was indebted, and whose 
property he had embezzled; that he subsequently committed suicide 
whilst of sound mind, with the deliberate intent to carry out this 
scheme, there can be no recovery. 

4. The defendant is entitled to set off the loss occasioned by the 
failure of Runk to keep his agreement not to die by his own hand 
within two years of the date thereof. The amount of this loss cannot 
be less than that of the policies sued upon. 

In the closing term of the year, in the United States Circuit 
Court of Appeals, the case came up on appeal. Justice Ache- 
son delivered the opinion as follows, affirming the judgment 
of the Circuit Court of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: 

ACHESON, J.: This was an action brought by A. Howard Ritter, 
executor of the last will of William M. Runk, late of the city of 
Philadelphia, deceased, against the Mutual Life Insurance Company 
of New York, upon six policies of insurance, together amounting to 
the sum of $75,000, all bearing date November 10, 1891, issued by 
the defendant company to William M. Runk upon his life. On the 



SUICIDE. 577 

fifth day of October, 1892, Mr. Runk, with great deliberation, com- 
mitted suicide by a pistol shot, at a time when, as the evidence indi- 
cates and the jury has found, he was of sound mind and able to 
understand both the physical and the moral character and conse- 
quences of his act of self-destruction. At the time of his suicide 
Mr. Runk carried insurance upon his life to the amount of $500,000, 
the policies for which had been issued to him by a number of 
different companies. When the policies here in suit were taken, Mr. 
Runk already carried upon his life policies of insurance issued by 
other companies to the amount of $315,000, of which $135,000 had 
been assigned by him to his aunt, Mrs. Barcroft, as collateral 
security for moneys he owed her. At the same time he effected the 
insurance which is the subject-matter of this suit. Mr. Runk took out 
another policy of insurance on his life in the defendant company for 
the benefit of his wife for $20,000. Shortly thereafter, in the month 
of January, 1892, he took out in his own name additional insurance 
upon his life to the amount of $90,000 in other companies. 

In connection with the facts already stated, there was evidence 
upon the trial of this case tending to show that at the time the poli- 
cies in suit were taken out, Runk was insolvent, that his entire income 
did not exceed $700 a month, out of which he had to support his 
family; that theretofore he had been engaged in, and thereafter con- 
tinued to be engaged in, stock speculations on a large scale, in which 
he sustained heavy losses, that he had then begun a system of sur- 
reptitious withdrawals (amounting at his death to $86,000) of his con- 
tribution of $100,000 to the capital stock of the firm of Darlington, 
Runk & Co., of which he was a member, in violation of his partner- 
ship obligations, and which withdrawals he artfully concealed, and 
it appeared further that, before the date of the policies in suit, Mr. 
Runk had embezzled funds of the Protestant Episcopal Mission, of 
which he was treasurer, to the amount of about $30,000. 

On the day of his death, or the day before, Mr. Runk wrote a 
letter to the executor named in his will, Mr. Ritter, giving a par- 
ticular account of his liabilities and a list of his insurance policies, 
and directing the application of the insurance moneys to his indebt- 
edness. This letter, and also other letters in evidence written by 
Mr. Runk just before he shot himself, clearly evince that he delib- 
erately committed suicide with the intention and in order that the 
insurance he had effected on his life might be collected by his executor 
and applied to the payment of his liabilities. 

As the case went to the jury, the only question of fact submitted 
to that tribunal was the question of the testator's sanity at the time 
he took his life. Nevertheless, error is assigned to the refusal of the 
Court to af^rm the plaintiff's first and second points, namely: i. The 
evidence is not sufficient to warrant the jury in finding that the 
deceased entered into the contracts of insurance evidenced by the 
policies sued upon with the intention of defrauding the company 



578 SUICIDE. 

defendant issuing the same. 2. The evidence is not sufficient to war- 
rant the judge in finding that the deceased entered into the said con- 
tracts of insurance with the intention of committing suicide. 

The assignments of error under this head raise the question whether 
there was any evidence in the cause which would have justified the 
judge in finding that the policies in suit had been taken out by Mr. 
Runk with the fraudulent purpose of ending his life by his own 
hand. We think that there was such evidence, and that affirmation 
of the above quoted points would have been erroneous. True, it was 
not shown by the declaration of the insured or by other like positive 
evidence that at the time he effected the insurance he had formed 
the purpose to take his life. But such direct evidence of dishonest 
intention is rarely obtainable. 

Fraudulent intention is seldom openly avowed, and ordinarily its 
existence must be deduced from the circumstances surrounding the 
particular transaction, apparent motive, and considered before and 
after the event. Here we have a man heavily in debt and insolvent, 
who had unlawfully appropriated to his own use trust funds, and was 
in constant danger of exposure; who had plunged into hazardous 
stock speculations, and who was already carrying an unusually large 
amount of life insurance, his income being grossly inadequate to pay 
the accruing premiums on that insurance, and maintain his family. 

In this desperate state of affairs this man takes out additional life 
insurance, amounting (with the policy in favor of his wife) to the 
large sum of $95,000, which he knew he could not maintain for any 
great length of time. Then about two months later we find him still 
further increasing his life insurance by other policies to the amount 
of $90,000. Nine months thereafter, when in a sane condition of 
mind, he takes his life, with the express purpose of enabling his 
estate to realize upon his life policies, leaving specific written direc- 
tions to his executor how to apply the insurance moneys in discharge 
of his liabilities. It is, indeed, the fact that Mr. Runk's suicide fol- 
lowed immediately after certain irregularities in his conduct of the 
business of Darlington, Runk & Co. had been detected, and when full 
exposure of his misconduct was imminent. Still, however, it was 
for a jury to determine, under all the circumstances, when Mr. Runk 
first formed the design to take his life, and the evidence, we think, 
would have well warranted the finding, that at the time he took out 
the policies in suit he was preparing for the worst, and that he then 
contemplated and had determined upon self-destruction should his 
stock speculations fail him in the near future. We are not then able 
to sustain any of the assignments of error upon this branch of the 
case. 

The plaintiff's fourth point was refused, and the defendant's first 
point was affirmed; and the court charged the jury, that if the insured, 
Mr. Runk, was in a sane condition of mind at the time of self-destruc- 
tion, his suicide was a defense to this suit. These instructions are 



SUICIDE. 579 

assigned for error, and the assignments raise the question whether 
the personal representatives of one who, when sane, deliberately kills 
himself with the intent to secure to his estate the amount of insurance 
he has efifected upon his life, can recover the insurance money, the 
policy containing no provision with respect to suicide. 

It is conceded that this precise question was not involved or 
decided in any case prior to the present one. In the cases brought 
to our attention where suicide, during sanity, by the person whose 
life was insured, was held not to be a valid defense, the policy was 
issued for the benefit of some other person, or an independent interest 
by assignment or otherwise, had been acquired by a person. Not 
one of the decisions, we think, gives countenance to the idea that 
the personal representatives of the insured can recover where the 
latter, whilst sane, deliberately commits suicide for the purpose of 
compelling payment of the insurance money to his estate. That 
there can be no recovery in such a case has been asserted by courts 
and judges whose expressions of opinion command great respect. 

It is a fundamental condition of the contr ct of "fe insurance, even 
if the policy be silent on the subject, that the insured while in a sound 
mental condition will not voluntarily destroy his life. The contract 
would lack mutuality of obligation if the insured at his own pleasure, 
by intentional self-destruction, could terminate the payment of the 
stipulated premiums and precipitate the payment of the sum insured. 
To sanction a recovery in such a case would be to reward fraud and 
encourage wrong-doing. 

The remaining assignments of error relate to the instructions of the 
court as to what constitutes that degree of mental unsoundness which 
will relieve against what otherwise would be the consequence of self- 
destruction. Here it seems to be proper to cite at length the plain- 
tiff's fifth point, and the answer thereto and the accompanying obser- 
vations made by the court. These were as follows: 

"5. If one whose life is insured intentionally kills himself when his 
reasoning faculties are so far impaired by insanity that he is unable to 
understand the moral character of his act, even if he does understand 
its physical nature, consequence and effect, such self-destruction will 
not of itself prevent recovery upon the poHcies. 

This is affirmed. I will say, however, that we must understand what 
is meant and intended by the term moral character of his act. It is a 
term which has been used by the courts and is correctly inserted in the 
point ; but it is a term which might be misunderstood. 

We are not to enter the domain of metaphysics in determining what 
constitutes insanity, so far as the subject is involved in this case. If 
Mr. Runk understood what he was doing, and the consequences of his 
act or acts to himself as well as to others, in other words, as a man of 
sound mind would, the consequences to follow from his contemplated 
suicide to himself, his character, his family and others, and was able to 
comprehend the wrongfulness of what he was about to do, as a sane man 
would, then he is to be regarded by you as sane. Otherwise he is not." 



580 SUICIDE. 

In a subsequent part of the charge the court said: 

" I, therefore, charge you that if he was in a sane condition of mind 
at the time, as I have described, able to understand the moral character 
and consequences of his act, his suicide is, a defense to the suit." 

We are not able to discover in these instructions anything of which 
the plaintiff in error can justly complain. 

The explanatory remarks which the learned court made in connec- 
tion with his affirmance of the plaintiff's fifth point were pertinent 
and proper. Upon the question of insanity the jury was plainly 
informed that to prevent a recovery it was not enough that Mr. Runk 
understood the physical nature, consequence, and effect of his act of 
self-destruction, but that he must have also understood the moral 
character and consequences of the act, and that, if he did not compre- 
hend its wrongfulness, he was to be regarded by the jury as insane. 

Nor were the instructions of the court inadequate to the facts of 
the case. We think that they fully covered the question of insanity 
here involved. We do not perceive that in the instructions com- 
plained of there was any departure from the principles approved by 
the Supreme Court in the cases of Life Insurance Company vs. Terry; 
Insurance Company vs. Rodel; Manhattan Life Insurance Company 
vs. Broughton, and Connecticut Mutual Life Insurance Company vs. 
Aken. 

The charge, we think, conformed to the rulings in those cases. 

We are of the opinion that this record discloses no error, and the 
judgment of the Circuit Court is affirmed. 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 581 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

INDETERMINATE — DISPUTABLE — PUZZLING — NON-PROVEN. 

WALTON DWIGHT. 

Colonel Walton Dwight was a prominent and respected citi- 
zen of Binghamton, N. Y., for many years. He was pro- 
prietor of one of its local newspapers, was at one time mayor 
of the city, and had been colonel of a regiment from that part 
of the State during the war. He was a large real estate opera- 
tor, having built a section of Binghamton known as Dwight- 
ville, and also a handsome hotel called the Dwight House, 
which was surrounded by fifty cottages. The city had no 
more pubHc-spirited and no more popular citizen. He was a 
man of commanding presence, six feet three in height, of large 
frame, weight 225 pounds, age forty-one, and apparently in 
robust health. His biographers describe him as a " splendid 
fellow," and he described himself as a man accustomed to 
" bore with a big auger." 

His business operations had always been on a grand scale, 
and largely based upon borrowed money. According to his 
own sworn statement, he had lived at the rate of eighteen 
thousand dollars a year, and had accumulated four hundred 
thousand dollars of debt, besides dissipating his wife's fortune, 
and rendering her insolvent to a large, if not almost an equal, 
amount. He finally was beset on all sides by creditors, mem- 
bers of his wife's family being among the most rapacious and 
exacting. In testimony given in 1878, during the bankruptcy 
proceedings which he had instituted for his relief, he swore 
as follows: "I received a notice that Dusenberry (his wife's 
uncle) was about to sell the equity interest in this estate, thereby 
sweeping the last plank from under me." Again, he says, *' It 
was just like killing me, and I felt as though I was sold out 
by everybody and everything." At another time, in the same 



582 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

proceedings, he stated, under oath, that he had but eight dol- 
lars '* on the face of the earth," and his wife but two dollars; 
and that he was borrowing money from his brother Ward to 
pay the bills for board of himself and wife at the Spaulding 
House. 

When Dwight was in the plenitude of power, his kinsfolk 
and his neighbors in Broome County regarded him as some- 
thing little short of a demi-god. He was *' king of the com- 
mons," and in their admiring eyes the king could do no wrong. 
When his vast enterprises came to naught, and he was stranded, 
a financial wreck, the willing subjects of his autocracy had full 
faith in his ability to rebound with acrobatic elasticity, and in 
his own good time, from the seat of restored credit and afflu- 
ence, to survey the gulf of misfortune from which he had 
safely emerged. 

But that gulf was so broad and deep that even this man of 
wonderful grasp and apparently limitless capacity was appalled 
by its magnitude. He wore a mask to conceal the disquietude 
that was consuming him, and none — not even his intimates — 
could penetrate the disguise, and discover that the old pluck 
and manhood and self-reliance were slipping away from him. 
His wealthy father-in-law, with confidence in his reactive vigor, 
offered him his check for a quarter of a million. With charac- 
teristic pride and hauteur he refused it. 

In this refusal he knew that he was giving another illustration 
of the proverb, " pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty 
spirit before a fall." Perhaps he foresaw that even with that 
bountiful help the gulf could not be bridged — that it was 
impassable for him. Those who take this view will judge his 
refusal mildly; yet under any view of the circumstances the 
question comes up, how can such exhibition of pride in declin- 
ing the generosity of the father-in-law be reconciled with the 
total absence of pride which found expression in willingness to 
father his debts upon the life insurance companies? For that 
he came to this resolve as the speediest means of extrication 
from the disheartening consequences of his bankruptcy, either 
by the sacrifice of a life which for him was no longer worth 
living, or by its pretended sacrifice, the substitution of another 
body, and his escape to a foreign country, those who closely 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 583 

watched the course of events fully believed. Those who took 
the latter view still adhere to it in the lapse of years with 
unshaken pertinacity. The asseverations of the Broome County 
adherents and pensioners, the declarations of doctors, the dis- 
putations of lawyers, the confident theories of detectives, the 
affirmations and negations of expert testimony have never 
altered their convictions. Nevertheless there was much in his 
conduct, his voluntary exposure, for example, to pneumonia 
by repeatedly swimming across the Susquehanna in very cold 
weather and his persistence in taking excessive quantities of 
morphia and gelsemium, particularly the latter — to point to a 
fixed purpose of self-destruction. It was testified to upon the 
stand that in the lasi weeks of his life he declared that " he 
would rather be in hell than be poor." 

Col, Dwight v/as not discharged from bankruptcy until 
November 6th, nine days before his death; but on the 31st 
day of July he began to apply for life insurance as an available 
means of providing for his obligations, and before the middle 
of September he had made formal applications to thirty-one 
companies for a sum in the aggregate of three hundred and 
ninety thousand dollars, requiring annual premiums of about 
thirteen thousand dollars. 

Twenty-one companies accepted the risk, as noted herewith, 
for an amount requiring annual premium payments of eight or 
nine thousand dollars: 

Equitable, N. Y $50,000 

Manhattan, N. Y 20,000 

Mutnal Benefit, N. J 15,000 

Nortli western, Milwaukee 15,000 

Gerniania, N. Y 15,000 

iStna, Conn 10,000 

Nvw^ York, N. Y 10,000 

Union Mui.ual, Maine 10,000 

Travelers, Conn 10,000 

National, Vermont 10.000 

Washin.i-ton, N. Y. 10,000 

New England, Boston 10.000 

Berkshire, Pitisfield 10.000 

United States, N. Y 10.000 

Massachusetts, Springfield 10,000 

Metropolitan, N. Y 10,000 



Carried forward $2. 



:5,ooo 



584 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

Brought forward $225,000 

State Mutual, Mass 10,000 

National, U. S. A 5,000 

Homoeopathic, N. Y 5,ooo 

Home, N. Y 5,000 

Brooklyn, N. Y 5,000 

Total $255,000 

This *' noble specimen of manhood " was so popular in his 
own community that his neighbors scornfully resented the 
imputations that followed thcGc transactions. Yet some of 
them could easily recall how v.i^en he was only twenty-eight he 
inveigled the cautious fossils of the Broome County Bank 
into furnishing the sum of $300,000 to purchase pine timber 
land in Canada, and hoiv he bought the land for much le^s 
money, and how he refused to return the balance, and how^ 
when suit was brought to recover, the jury disagreed, and hoy 
with the " swag " — that is the word in such cases — ^he boughi 
the Dickinson property known as '' The Orchard," and in- 
vested in an extended plan of improvements, and how on 01. e 
occasion, when his family were away visiting and no one was 
left at home but himself, the mansion and contents, insured 
for $35,000, were destroyed by fire soon after he had quitted 
the house to rejoin the family. These and similar incidents 
were, possibly, susceptible of satisfactory explanation by his 
adherents. What the insurance companies more particularly 
wanted in the later scenes of dramatic performance was a-i 
explanation of the false answers in the application by whic^r 
they were deceived. Taking the application of the compai 
that came forward to stand a trial test, the Germania, as ^ 
type. Col. Dwight answered the questions here appended 
follows : 

1. In what occupation has he been engaged during the last 
ten years? — Ans. Real estate and grain dealer 

2. Is he now, or has he been, engaged ir or connected with 
the manufacture or sale of any beer, wine, or other intoxicating 
liquor? — Ans. No. 

3. Whether the party to be assured is now, or has been, 
insured in other companies; in which, and for what amount 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 585 

in each? State exactly on what kind of poHcy. — Ans. Yes: 
Mutual, N. Y., fifteen year endowment, ten thousand dollars; 
Connecticut Mutual, ordinary life, fifteen thousand dollars; 
Washington, ordinary life, ten thousand dollars; Equitable, 
ordinary life, ten thousand dollars. 

4. Whether an assurance has been applied for with this or 
any other company without having led to an assurance; if so, 
with which companies; and for what reason did the application 
not lead to an assurance? — Ans. No. 

5. Has the party now, or has the same ever had, any of the 
following diseases: spitting of blood, bronchitis, consumption, 
etc. — Ans. No. 

1. It was in evidence that Col. Dwight, during his bank- 
ruptcy proceedings in 1878, swore that his whole occupation 
from 1872 consisted in fighting his lawsuits and keeping the 
Dwight House. 

2. It was proved, and not disputed, that he sold liquors 
during the whole period of time which he kept the Dwight 
House. 

3. It was proved, and not disputed, that he never was 
insured in the Mutual Life of New York, nor in the Connecticut 
Mutual Life. 

4. It was proved, and not disputed, that he had made appli- 
cations to the Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Company and 
others, which had not led, and never did lead, to an assurance. 

5. It was proved by several witnesses that he had, in March, 
1867, severe cough with repeated spitting of blood, amount- 
ing in at least one instance to a copious hemorrhage, and 
that he had repeatedly said that he had had hemorrhages from 
the lungs; also that he "expected the damned thing would 
carry him ofif." This testimony was not disputed by the plain- 
tiff, who freely admitted the spitting of blood, but claimed that 
it was not a disease. At the apex of one lung, at the first 
autopsy, was found a " cicatrix," or " fibrous nodule," a lesion 
which was noted on the official notes subscribed to by the 
fifteen physicians present as being '' probably the result of old 
pulmonary phthisis." 



586 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

The truth of the answers to the foregoing questions was 
warranted in the usual form, and under the usual stipulation 
that if any of the answers in the application were in any respect 
untrue, the policy should be null and void. If the Germania 
and the associated companies had chosen to contest payment 
on the ground of such deception, they could have successfully 
resisted a claim. The law in New York State requires the 
judge to decide upon legal points, and not to allow a case to 
go to the jury when there is no conflict of testimony. But the 
companies were not willing to win the case upon purely tech- 
nical grounds. Their contention was based upon the con- 
viction that fraud had been perpetrated which called for retri- 
butive justice. Resistance was in the interest of good morals 
and public policy, as well as in defense of the funds that 
belonged to honest policyholders. 

The circumstances attending Dwight's insurance and his suc- 
ceeding death or disappearance were, to view them in the most 
charitable light, suspicious. The large insurance upon his life 
required an amount of ready money for periodical payments 
beyond his reach; the second quarter's premiums were nearly 
due; as he was short of means, there was danger of lapse; he 
had procured his discharge in bankruptcy, and in that way a 
clearance of indebtedness amounting to $400,000, so that in 
case of his death, his creditors could not touch a cent of the 
insurance money, and an immediate death would save the 
policies from lapse; he had his hair and beard, of which he 
had always been very proud, suddenly cut off, which rendered 
him unrecognizable to many of his nearest acquaintances; he 
sent his son away; he had with him as an accomplice a man 
named Charles W. Hull, who was notorious as a promoter of 
the Cardifif Giant fraud, and this individual testified to having 
been the only witness of the Colonel's death; he made a will dis- 
tributing money in such a way as would most likely promote 
deception and create a strong public sentiment favorable to 
the testator; $10,000 was given for Christmas dinners for the 
poor; $7,500 for a library; $1,000 for an annual dinner for the 
newspaper men; $3,000 for the Binghamton fire department; 
$5,000 to the coroner who was to hold the inquest upon the 
body; and $10,000 to the surrogate who was to pass upon the 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 587 

will. Why should money have been left to these officials? Is 
it customary for men in making wills to insert bequests to 
coroners and surrogates? Did not such extraordinary pro- 
cedure, taken in connection with the other circumstances, 
justify the suspicion that it was a piece of strategy to buy the 
indulgent consideration of these officials? In espousing his 
cause they would contend vigorously for their promised inheri- 
tance. 

With the vigor which characterized the administration of the 
United States Life Insurance Company, its executive officers 
soon acquired evidence to invalidate the claims of these bene- 
ficiaries. They had direct and collateral proof of his pulmon- 
ary hemorrhages; they had acknowledgments over his own 
signature, and corroborative statements from others. In an- 
swer to the question, " Has the party had spitting or cough- 
ing of blood ? " Dwight answered " no," but added on the mar- 
gin, " see note." When asked, in the course of correspond- 
ence, for explanation of this direction, he said that he had 
taken a very serious cold ten years before, and the cough was 
so violent as to start blood from the nose and throat; never- 
theless he did not consider that it was worth taking into 
account, and therefore answered in the negative. Whether it 
was of little account, when taken in connection with his truthful 
admissions, may be inferred from one sentence in the report of 
the autopsy made by Dr. Delafield. He said: "Upper lobe, 
right lung, at apex, several small fibrous nodules, probably the 
result of old pulmonary phthisis T 

Upon discovery of the leading features of the history, the 
president of the company, Mr. T. H. Brosnan, sent an agent 
to Binghamton to inform Dwight of the detection of his mis- 
representations. They had traced his footsteps through his 
devious windings, and they had learned why, when sick even 
unto death, and under medical surveillance, he stole away from 
home under cover of night, and took a sleeping-car for New 
York city. The agent was instructed to tender return of the 
quarterly premiums, and to demand surrender of the policy, 
which, under the deception that had been practiced, would be 
regarded as null and void. The agent was treated with defi- 
ance, and surrender was contemptuously refused. This Hector 



588 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

" understood his rights, and knew what he was doing." The 
company preferred to fight it out during the hfe-time of the 
aggressor; the arrogant colonel preferred to leave a legacy of 
litigation, and to take the chances of a stained and clouded 
reputation. 

During the month of September and the first ten days of 
October, 1878, Col. Dwight spent most of his time in hunting 
in the neighborhood of Windsor, N. Y., over a country which 
is extremely hilly or semi-mountainous. About October nth 
it was announced that he was unwell. News of his alleged 
illness reaching the insurance companies, their suspicions were 
aroused, and Dr. Charles H. Porter was sent to see him on 
November 6th. Dr. Porter found, after very careful examina- 
tion, nothing abnormal with any of the organs of Col. Dwight, 
and obtained from Dwight's physician, in his presence, the 
history of an obscure illness in which the only objective symp- 
toms had been some vomiting and some evidences of a par- 
oxysm, said to resemble an attack of pernicious fever, but 
which had lasted only a few minutes, and in which the tempera- 
ture had not risen above or fallen below 98^°, and the pulse 
not over 80. Suspecting that Col. Dwight might be suffering 
from chronic arsenical poisoning. Dr. Porter asked for the 
usual chemical analysis, but was met with the reply that Fow- 
ler's solution was being administered, and that therefore arsenic 
would of necessity be exhibited in the renal secretion. 

The evidence for the defense gave no account of what occur- 
red in the history of Col. Dwight between the 6th and 15th of 
November. 

In order to obtain some information concerning the day of 
his death, Mrs. Owens, a sister of Mrs. Dwight, was placed 
upon the stand. According to her statement, the apartments 
occupied by Col. Dwight were in a semi-detached cottage, 
which formed a part of the Spaulding House, in Binghamton. 
They consisted of a sitting-room, entered directly from a cor- 
ridor, and communicating with a bedroom which was furnished 
with one window opening upon the ground. In the sitting- 
room was an open fire or stove. The bed in the chamber had 
a high head-board, of such a character that it would be easily 
possible for a man to hang himself whilst in bed. 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 589 

During the day of November 15th, Col. Dwight was up, 
dressed, saw various persons in his sitting-room, executed legal 
papers in a clear, bold hand, was bathed, and had his beard 
cut off by a barber. Between 8 and 9 o'clock P. M., Mr. 
Charles A. Hull made his appearance. About half-past nine 
Dr. D. S. Burr called, chatted a few moments, and then left. 
Mrs. Dwight and Mrs. Owens left the room a few minutes 
after the doctor, Col. Dwight bidding them good-night. They 
retired to their room on the other side of the corridor, where 
they slept together. At about half-past eleven they were 
aroused by a rap upon the door. Mrs. Dwight instantly arose 
and went to her husband's room, Mrs. Owens following in 
two or three minutes. Mrs. Owens found in the room Mr. 
Hull, W. F. Spaulding (the proprietor of the hotel), and Mrs. 
Dwight. Col. Dwight gave no sign of life after she entered. 
He was supported on pillows, and Mr. Spaulding was trying 
to give him brandy, but desisted in a few minutes, saying that 
he could not swallow it. At the suggestion of some one, hot 
water was obtained and Col. Dwight's hands were put into it. 
Something over half an hour after Mrs. Owens went to the 
room, the undertaker arrived. Mrs. Dwight and Mrs. Owens 
then went into another room and went to bed. 

In order to complete the story at this point, it is necessary 
to draw on the evidence furnished by Neri Pine, the attorney 
of Col. Dwight, who was put upon the stand by the plain^tiff. 
He stated that on November 15th he called on Col. Dwight to 
transact certain legal business, and to inquire concerning the 
funds for the payment of the second quarter's premium which 
would be due on the 19th. Col. Dwight repHed that he had 
no money to pay it, but that he (Mr. Pine) had better see Mr. 
Dusenberry, his father-in-law, who he (Dwight) thought would 
advance the necessary funds. Mr. Neri Pine further stated 
that Col. Dwight gave him no reason for supposing that any 
arrangement had been perfected with Mr. Dusenberry, but told 
him " that he was going to make arrangements with his father- 
in-law." 

By the morning after this interview, death had to all appear- 
ances rendered unnecessary any call by Mr. Neri Pine upon 
Mr. Dusenberry's good nature. 



590 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

In the last will and testament of Col. Dwight, he was frank 
enough to state that his only assets were the moneys to be 
derived from the life-insurance companies, and that he did not 
consider himself morally or otherwise required to pay anything 
to his creditors, from whom he escaped through his bank- 
ruptcy proceedings. At the same time, as has heretofore been 
noted, he bequeathed large sums for a purpose the artifice and 
significance of which would seem to have been as transparent 
at the time as it is to-day. Nor is it any easier at this late day 
than it was then to reconcile such a conflicting attitude with 
the ethics and the equities which govern the relations and the 
transactions of honorable men. 

With a similar flourish, and an eye to stage-efifect, this 
grand seigneur directed a number of trifling sums, from $i.6o 
upwards, to be paid to certain small creditors, who were spe- 
cifically named. This eagerness to pay his petty personal debts 
seemed to indicate that he expected to die soon. After the 
payment of the legacies, the will provided that the bulk of the 
money to be derived from the insurance companies should pass 
to his wife and son, but if the wife should not be released from 
bankruptcy, her share was to go to the son, in order to prevent 
its being used for the payment of debts. His frame of mind 
is reflected in the following statement in the will: " I have lived 
to that age, and been subject to such experience, that I 
have no further ambition for myself beyond leaving my family 
comfortable, and with sufficient means to enable them to live 
as they were in the habit of living heretofore, and also in mak- 
ing such friendly bequests to those who are endeared to me 
from association and kindly acts, as will leave pleasant memo- 
ries behind me when I start on the long journey." 

From a carefully written discussion"^' of the medico-legal 
aspects of the case by Dr. Horatio C. Wood, of Philadelphia, 
the following interesting passages are extracted: 

Fifty-eight hours after death the first autopsy was made on 
the alleged body of Col. Dwight. The results obtained were 
testified to on the part of the defense by Dr. John Swinburne, 
and are embodied in the first hypothetical question herein pre- 

*"The Expert Testimony in the Dwight Insurance Case." — T^e 
Medical News, January 12, 1884. 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 591 

sented. A second autopsy was made about five months after 
death in the presence of various physicians. The results 
obtained were testified to by Drs. Swinburne, Sherman, and 
Bridges, and are also embodied, so far as they are of any 
importance, in the hypothetical question. 

Before taking up these questions, it seems proper to give a 
little more in detail the evidence submitted by the defense in 
regard to two or three points. 

As to the condition of the Heart. Dr. Swinburne testified 
that the heart was perfectly healthy in every particular, except 
that some little thickening was noticed around the edges of the 
valves, and that at the second autopsy he carefully examined 
the coronary artery and found it entirely normal. 

Dr. Sherman testified that, at the second autopsy, he found 
the heart remarkably firm, and in a good state of preservation; 
that he had prepared about one hundred and fifty shdes of its 
walls for microscopical examination, and found in each the 
muscular fibre perfectly normal. He had with him in court a 
number of these specimens, and offered them for examination 
by any experts who might be called by the plaintiff, but no 
such examination was made. 

Dr. Austin Flint, Jr., stated that he had examined a number 
of these sHdes, and found the heart-tissues normal. Dr. H. C. 
Wood confirmed this condition of the muscle-fibre in the slides 
which he had examined. Dr. E. H. Bridges testified that he 
had examined the heart both macroscopically and micro- 
scopically, and found it normal.* 

When it is borne in mind that Col. Dwight was an athletic 
man, in the prime of life, forty-one years of age; had spent 
the last months of his life hunting in a hilly country without 
suffering from shortness of breath or other distress; that the 
lesions in the body were entirely diverse from those found after 
death from heart-failure; that the heart had emptied itself of 
blood, and ceased its action in systole; that there was no evi- 
dence whatsoever at the trial in any way contradicting the 

* The perfect condition of the heart at the second autopsy was 
largely due to the fact that, after the closure of the body at the first 
autopsy, the undertaker poured into the thoracic cavity a pint of 
concentrated solution of carbolic acid, arsenic, camphor, and corro- 
sive sublimate. 



592 PRO^BLEMATICAL CASES. 

statements made by Drs. Swinburne, Sherman, and Bridges; 
that the heart, carefully examined macroscopically, appeared to 
be perfectly normal; and the assertions of Drs. Sherman, 
Bridges, 'A. Flint, Jr., and H. C. Wood, that the fibres were 
shown by microscopical examination to have their striae well 
marked, and to be entirely free from degeneration — the ques- 
tion as to the condition of the heart must be considered as 
settled. Certainly no opinion that death resulted from heart- 
failure could be given upon the evidence furnished at the trial. 

In regard to the existence of superficial emphysema of tJitr 
lung as present at the first autopsy, Dr. Swinburne testified 
minutely and positively, although from some oversight this 
testimony was not embodied in the hypothetical question as to 
the cause of death as given a little later. Such recent, fresh 
rupture of the upper air-vesicles is, in itself, almost sufficient 
to prove that a man has died from an obstruction to respiration 
in the throat. To rupture the air-vesicles there must be great 
internal pressure, as of forced respiration, and prevention of the 
escape of the air, which then tears open those vesicles whose 
walls are not closely supported by other vesicles, or by tightly 
contracting muscles. 

In regard to the alleged furrow in tke^ neck, Dr. Swinburne 
testified that it 

Was a heavy indentation in the neck, commencing on the right 
side near the hyoid bone, and extending upwards and backwards to 
within, perhaps, an inch or so, and perhaps less, of the center of the 
posterior part of the neck; on the left side, the same indentation 
commenced about the upper part of the cricoid cartilage, extended 
about the same angle upwards and backwards until the indentations 
came within an inch and a half of meeting. These indentations were 
full three-eighths of an inch deep, so you could lay your finger right 
in them, and about that in width — I should say full that. At the 
bottom of the indentation, there was a peculiar appearance, sort of 
leathery appearance, or had a half-burnt or scorched appearance. 

Dr. Swinburne further stated that at the second autopsy this 
indentation was " plainly perceptible," and " the same peculiar 
condition which appeared before at the bottom of the indenta- 
tion was present — that sort of leathery or hardened feeling/' 

Dr. Sherman testified that, at the second autopsy, he called 
attention to the deep furrow in the neck, and put his finger 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 593 

in it. He stated that " the texture of the skin within this furrow 
had a leathery feeUng. It was what Casper calls mummified." 
That he had seen other cases where death had been caused by 
strangulation with a cord, and that the furrow had the same 
characters as in the other cases. 

Dr. Bridges testified that '' the furrow was rounded at the 
bottom, about one-eighth to about a quarter of an inch thick, 
and a quarter to half an inch broad. The lower or bottom 
part of the furrow or groove was rounded, so that it fitted 
the convex surface of my little finger, that I passed through 
on each side. The base of the groove was hard, and had this 
appearance that has been described — a parchment look." 

Mr. Nat. B. Freeman testified that he had, during the war, 
been accustomed to handling corpses, and familiarizing him- 
self with their external appearances; that at the second autopsy 
he examined the furrow, found that it '' was deep enough for my 
finger to go partially into it;" that the skin at the bottom of 
the furrow appeared hard; "the feeling was a hard feeling; its 
appearance was similar in appearance to old leather." 

In regard to the cause of death, Dr. Swinburne gave as his 
firmly settled opinion, based upon personal knowledge of the 
external and internal appearance of the body, that the death 
had been caused by strangulation with a rope or cord. 

The position of the other experts was judicial, so far as 
concerned the cause of death; they gave their opinions upon 
hypothetical questions which embodied the evidence as to facts 
which had been given and bore upon the subject. 

There were several hypothetical questions given, but for 
want of space only the one which bore directly upon the main 
issue as to the cause of death is here inserted: 

" You examine about fifty-eight hours after death, in the middle 
of November, the body of a man found dead at about ii P. M., 
having been last seen alive one hour and a half before, and then 
apparently not in a condition of apprehension of sudden death; you 
find it to be the body of an unusually large and powerful man, great 
muscular vigor, with a considerable development of firm fat. forty-one 
years, of age; you find nothing unusual in the appearance of the fnco 
and the general surface of the skin, except the presence of small 
dark spots indicating a little eflfusion of blood in the skin of the back 
and the back of the right arm; a furrow about the sides of the neck 



594 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

nearly meeting in front and behind, about the size of the Httle finger, 
rounded at the bottom, and the skin involved in the furrow dense 
and hard, and a surface like parchment; the furrow beginning in 
front just above the larynx and extending upwards and backwards at 
an angle of nearly forty-five degrees; the brain and membranes per- 
fectly natural and healthy, except a clot of blood on the surface on 
one side near the top of the head, the clot being evidently of very 
recent origin, but not sufficient in itself to produce death; the lungs 
deeply congested with dark liquid blood, but presenting no evidence 
of inflammation, a few small fibrous nodules, and the bronchial tubes 
and windpipe deeply congested and filled with bloody mucus; the 
heart and the blood-vessels, including the valves of the heart and the 
vessels supplying the blood to the substance of the heart, absolutely 
healthy and natural in size and in every other regard, excepting a 
slight unimportant thickening of some of the valves; the cavities of 
the heart containing a very small quantity of dark blood; the liver, 
spleen, and kidneys absolutely natural and healthy, except that they, 
especially the kidneys, are deeply congested with blood and of nat- 
ural size and weight; a small quantity of undigested food in the 
stomach, the mucous membrane of the stomach and intestines con- 
gested, and a small area of apparent inflammation about the size of 
a dollar in the stomach; finding all of the organs in the conditions 
stated, and the furrow made as described above, what, in your opinion, 
was the immediate cause of death?" 

To this, Dr. Wood answered, the death could only have been 
produced by strangulation with a cord. After the cross-exami- 
nation of Dr. Wood, experts were called, one after the other, 
until the Court refused to hear any more. In this way, Drs. 
Porter, Sherman, Bridges, Avery, Lee, and Hand (the latter 
three gentlemen being practising physicians and coroners or 
ex-coroners of Chenango County, New York) were allow^ed to 
answer the hypothetical question, and all agreed with the 
answer given by Dr. Wood. 

The only evidence offered by the plaintiff bearing upon the 
medico-legal facts in the case was: 

First. In regard to the two alleged chills occurring during 
his illness — the last one a week previous to his death. 

The only evidence given concerning these attacks was that of 
Mrs. Bessie MacDonald and Mr. Francis Downe. It was so 
indefinite, and would require so much space for its recital 
here, that the reader is referred to the book of corrected evi- 
dence. From it, it is impossible to state with any degree of pos- 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 595 

itiveness what the nature of the attacks was. It is not probable 
that they were malaria, for in the first attack there was no 
fever, and in the second attack the fever lasted for "perhaps 
half an hour," and the chief symptom was abdominal pain. 

The counsel for the plaintiffs offered to prove the symptoms 
and nature of the sickness of Col. Dwight, and the cause of 
his death, by Drs. Orton and Burr, who attended Col. Dwight 
in his last illness, and were each of them on the witness-stand. 
According to the law of the State of New York no physician 
is allowed to testify concerning a patient, or to give informa- 
tion which has been imparted to him by a patient, unless the 
latter publicly gives his consent. And when the defense in an 
early stage of the trial sought to put Dr. Doane on the stand 
to prove that Col. Dwight's hemorrhage came from the lungs, 
they were debarred under this statute, fhe counsel for the 
plaintiffs contended that the right of waiver passes to the exe- 
cutors of a dead man; but on the part of the defendant such 
interpretation of the law was strenuously resisted. Many hours 
were spent in legal argument, but the court finally decided in 
favor of the plaintiffs, and permitted Doctors Orton and Burr 
to testify as to their knowledge of the sickness of Col. Dwight, 
and the causes of his death. When, however, this right was 
granted, the counsel for the plaintiffs did not exercise it, and 
neither Dr. Orton nor Dr. Burr was asked a single question 
concerning the symptoms of Col. Dwight's alleged last illness, 
or the causes of his death.* Under these circumstances it 
seems impossible for a professional man to attach importance 
to the statements made by persons without medical knowledge 
concerning the symptoms of the alleged illness. There are no 
important data other than those furnished in the evidence for 
the defense by Dr. Porter, even for deciding whether the sick- 
ness was real or feigned. There is certainly no proof that the 
alleged chills were not produced by overdoses of a depressing 

* Attorney-General Russell, in his speech, asserted that the plain- 
tiffs' counsel had claimed the right of putting Drs. Orton and Burr 
upon the stand, with the expectation that the judge would decide 
against them, and that then they would say to the jury that they 
could have explained Col. Dwight's sickness and death by the phy- 
sicians who attended him, but that the court would not admit the 
testimony. 



596 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

vegetable poison, and the gastric symptoms by overdoses of 
arsenic, both of which drugs were in Col. Dwight's possession 
and under his personal control. 

Second. In regard to the occurrence of the night of Col. 
Dwight's death. 

The only important testimony was that of Mr. Charles A. 
Hull. According to Mrs. Owens, Mr. W. F. Spaulding and 
Mrs. Dwight were already in the room of Col. Dwight when 
she (Mrs. Owens) entered directly after his death. It is alto- 
gether probable that Mr. W. F. Spaulding had intimate ac- 
quaintance with the circumstances surrounding the death of 
Col. Dwight. The defense could not call him, since, according 
to their theory of the case, he had guilty knowledge, and if he 
should testify falsely, they, not being able to cross-examine or 
contradict their own witness, would be held by his declarations. 
The failure of the plaintiffs to put either Mr. Spaulding or Mrs. 
Dwight on the stand naturally excited comment. 

Mr. Charles A. Hull testified that he had never sat up with 
Col. Dwight until the night of his death; that he had been his 
assignee in bankruptcy, but not intimately acquainted with him ; 
that he had no knowledge or experience in nursing; that no 
medicines were left with him and no instructions given him 
by the physicians on Friday evening; and that Mr. Dwight sent 
for him the Wednesday preceding the Friday of his (Dwight's) 
death, and had requested him at that interview to sit up with 
him on Friday night because " in an emergency he thought 
I was cool and would not get excited." He also admitted on 
cross-examination that he had stated before the coroner's jury 
that Dwight said " he wanted him because he would be cool 
in case anything should happen." 

Mr. Hull testified that shortly after lo o^clock: 

I stationed myself in a chair near the door leading into his bed- 
room, and this door wa? partially open, and I sat there. During the 
time I sat there, at one time the Colonel called me, and said his 
head was feverish and wished me to saturate a cloth in bay rum and 
put it on his head, and I did so. And at another time, he called for 
some water and I gave him a swallow of water. After that he seemed 
to sleep, and before, at different times, I thought he was sleeping, 
but of course it was uncertain, and I did not disturb him. Along 
about between ii o'clock and half-past ii, I heard him gasp for 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 597 

breath, as it seemed to me, and he says, " Charley," and called to me, 
and I went to his side as quick as I could and put my hand under 
his head, and raised his head up and gave him some brandy; and then 
I ran across the hall as rapidly as I could to Mrs. Dwight's door 
and rapped on it very loud, and went back to the bedside again, and 
I think I administered brandy a second time then, and I felt of 
his pulse; and in a short time Mrs. Dwight came out only partially 
dressed, and I asked her to touch the bell for Mr. Spaulding, and 
she did so. In a very short time Mr. Spaulding came up there, and 
was followed by Mrs. Owens, Mr. Spaulding's brother, and his 
family, consisting of his wife and daughter. 

That about fifteen minutes before he heard the gasping, 
Col. Dwight took a biscuit from a stand near the bed and ate 
it. Also that he (Hull) sat in a chair, so placed in the sitting- 
room that he could see all of Col. Dwight's movements through 
the open door. He further stated that Mr. Spaulding pinched 
Dwight's tongue, leading to the suspicion that it was pro- 
truding. 

The only other evidence at all bearing upon the events now 
under discussion was that given by James E. Lee, the servant 
who brought the hot water in which, Mrs. Owens and Mr. 
Hull testified, the hands of Col. Dwight were soaked after she 
entered the room. Mr. Lee believed that he saw Col. Dwight 
breathing at the rate of about four or five times a minute. 
Before this, however, according to the statements of both Hull 
and Mrs. Owens, Col. Dwight was dead. 

Third. As already stated, the expert testimony on the part of 
the plaintiffs was limited to a description of the lesions found 
in the body after death. In regard to these lesions, the cross- 
examinations of Drs. Hyde, Burr, Chittenden, and Orton elic- 
ited the fact that there was very little non-agreement between 
them and Dr. Swinburne, except in regard to the appearances 
upon the neck. 

It was claimed by several, if not all, of these gentlemen, that 
the so-called indentation upon the neck was simply a crease 
or fold in the skin ; but on cross-examination they all admitted 
that they had signed at the time of the autopsy, when the body 
was before them, without comment or protest, an official 
description of this crease as " a heavy indentation, extending 
upwards and backwards from os hyoides to right around back 



598 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

of neck, and on left side, below the thyroid cartilage, running 
upwards and backwards at an angle of about forty-five degrees." 

In the manuscript notes of the autopsy there were certain 
erasures and interlineations. The testimony as to whether 
these had been made before or after signing was conflicting, 
but on other points there was no question as to the authenticity 
of the notes which bore testimony to the existence of '' several 
small ecchymoses of skin of back and shoulders; anterior part 
of right arm, small ecchymosis." In other respects the descrip- 
tion corresponded with that given by Dr. Swinburne in the 
testimony for the defense, except that the word " bloody " had 
been scratched over with a pen, as it occurred in the notes 
before ** mucus," speaking in reference to the bronchial tubes; 
and that, instead of the lungs being said to be emphysematous, 
they were spoken of as " unduly inflated." 

Testimony was given by Mr. Van Vradenburg, Mr. Ayres, 
the undertaker, and James E. Lee, in regard to the existence 
of a furrow around the neck shortly after death. Mr. Van 
Vradenburg testified that his " examination of his neck " " was 
close and marked," and that he was led to make this examina- 
tion " on account of something that was then stirring in my 
(his) own mind." The nature of this " something " was not in 
evidence, but Mr. Van Vradenburg further stated that " it did 
not lead him to investigate any other part of his (Dwight's) 
person," nor did he examine the feet or hands. 

Mr. Ayres testified that he was the undertaker who prepared 
Col. Dwight's body, washing and dressing him; that directly 
after his death there was " no crease or mark as of a rope or 
otherwise upon his neck." He further testified that the body 
was placed in an ice-box in such a way that the head was 
forcibly bent forward on the body, the chin resting upon the 
chest, and the occiput being raised, so as to bend the neck at 
an angle of about forty-five degrees. He gave it as his opinion 
that the crease, or furrow, or indentation subsequently found 
in the neck of Col. Dwight was produced by the elevation of 
the head in the ice-box, and its subsequent restoration to the 
normal position. Mr. James E. Lee stated that he assisted the 
undertaker, and the crease was not there then. 

After the plaintiffs had closed the case, the defense recalled 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 599 

their experts, and put to them the following hypothetical ques- 
tions. There was no dispute whatever as to the agreement of 
the conditions of these questions with the facts of the case as 
testified to by the medical witnesses for the plaintiffs; in the 
second question, the testimony of Messrs. Van Vradenburg, 
Ayres, and Lee in regard to the non-existence of the furrow 
directly after death was omitted; the medical part of the ques- 
tion is taken almost verbatim from the notes of the autopsy, 
the disputed part of these notes being omitted. 

Question i*. "Assuming that a man of 41 years of age, who had 
previously enjoyed robust health, had been complaining for about 
three weeks, and was found on a Saturday morning in bed, shivering, 
teeth chattering, surface clammy and cold, with the blood settled 
under his nails, and so continued from one to two hours, breaking 
out into a cold sweat, with a feeble, whispering voice, and that this 
attack passed off without fever; that the second Friday after this 
occurrence, having during the day been up attending to business with 
his lawyer, and having his beard dressed by a barber, he was left 
about 10 P. M. by his doctor in such a condition as to create no 
alarm; that at or about 11 P. M. he spoke pleasantly to his attendant, 
calling his attention to his manner of eating a biscuit, helping him- 
self to one from a dish near his bed, and chewing it without difficulty; 
that within fifteen minutes the attention of the attendant was called 
to such man by a gasping noise, and that this man was dead in a few 
minutes thereafter; that at an autopsy held within fifty-eight hours 
after death the liver and spleen were found to be normal, except con- 
gested, the heart nearly empty, and that there was no pigmentation 
anywhere — Could or could not such a man have died of congestive 
chill, or any other form of malarial fever? " 

The uniform answer to this question by the experts was that, 
in their opinion, he could not have so died. 

Question 2. " Suppose that a man, after an obscure alleged illness 
of about five weeks' duration, is on a given day able to be up and 
transact business with his lawyer and have his beard trimmed; is 
left by his doctor at 10 P. M. on the same day, in such a condition as 
not to give any cause for alarm; and that at 11 P. M. is talking 
pleasantly to his attendant and eating a biscuit, and in less than half 
an hour after is dead; and that at the autopsy, made fifty-eight hours 
after death, the following conditions are revealed: a heavy indenta- 
tion, extending upwards and backwards from os hyoides to right 
around back of neck and on left side below the thyroid cartilage 
running upwards and backwards at an angle of about forty-five 

*The first part of this question was based upon the testimony of Mrs. MacDonald. 



eOO PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

degrees. Post-mortem discoloration of posterior portion of body, 
several small ecchymoses of skin of back and shoulders; anterior part 
of right arm, small ecchymosis. Thorax, lungs, and heart in natural 
position, except that the lungs are unduly inflated. About four ounces 
of serum in bottom of left pleural cavity; the same amount in right 
pleural cavity. Left lung one pound and three-quarters; bronchi con- 
gested and coated with mucus. Upper lobe congested and oedema- 
tous; lower lobe still more congested and oedematous. Right lung 
two pounds; bronchi congested and coated with mucus. Upper lobe, 
at the apex several small fibrous nodules; rest of upper lobe con- 
gested and oedematous. Lower lobe congested and oedematous. 
Heart healthy; weight, fifteen ounces. Right ventricle contains a 
little fluid blood, not over one-half ounce; left ventricle contain^ little 
fluid blood, not over one-half ounce. Left auricle contains a little 
clotted blood. Stomach, at the fundus mucous membrane softened 
and partly destroyed by post-mortem changes. Pyloric end of 
stomach, mucous membrane studded with small white spots denoting 
chronic gastritis. Liver congested more than usual; normal color 
and consistence. Kidneys uniformly congested, and otherwise 
healthy. Epiglottis, larynx, and trachea congested and coated with 
mucus. Inner surface of the dura mater on the left side, chronic 
hemorrhagic pachymeningitis, with a small extravasation of blood 
on the left side, over the posterior portion of the parietal and anterior 
portion of occipital lobes. Pia mater of convexity normal, except 
discoloration over occipital lobes from blood. Brain neither con- 
gested nor anaemic, otherwise healthy. And further, that at an inquest 
held five months after the first autopsy, the indentation on the neck 
was still distinctly visible: — Could or not death have been produced 
by natural causes? '' 

The answer to this question was given by Drs. Porter, Swin- 
burne, Bridges, Sherman, and Wood, who agreed in stating 
that it could not. 

To each of these physicians the further question was put as 
to what in their opinion was the cause of death under the con- 
ditions named. All agreed in answering positively that death 
was produced by strangulation with a rope or cord. 

The following question was asked in regard to the furrow: 

Question 3. "Assuming that the body of a man weighing in the 
neighborhood of two hundred pounds, forty-one years of age, having 
a full fleshy neck, about two hours after death is placed upon a board 
on its back, with the head raised upon a book and two pillows, and 
left in that position for about nine hours; and then placed in an ice- 
box with its head elevated at an angle of about forty-five degrees, 
and left there for about forty-eight hours, and then removed and 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 601 

placed flat on a table; is it possible that a heavy indentation, com- 
mencing near the Adam's apple, and running upward and backward 
at an angle of about forty-five degrees on either side to within less 
than two inches of meeting in the rear, could be produced by the 
changes in position stated? " 

The negative answer which was given by the experts to 
whom this question was put, seems entirely correct. It is diffi- 
cult to conceive how a fold or crease made by bending the 
neck should deserve the use of the term *' heavy indentation " 
to describe it, and it is still more inconceivable that a fold, or 
crease, should be made in the back of the neck by bending 
the head forwards, which would necessarily stretch the parts 
said to be folded. Further, a crease made in the manner 
described would be most marked in the front of the neck 
where the centre of the fold would occur, whereas the indenta- 
tion was not visible at this place. Moreover, the plaintiffs' 
experts stated that the indentation involved the subdermal 
adipose tissue of the sides of the neck, and it is very hard to 
understand how a crease made by bending the neck forward 
for a day or two could do this, and be so deeply impressed as 
to remain distinctly perceptible after the body had been buried 
five or six months. 

In concluding this statement of the case of Col. Dwight, it 
remains only to call attention finally to the remarkable agree- 
ment that there is in the testimony, and to the fact that there 
was extremely little conflict, practically no conflict at all, 
between the experts; that the sole contradiction of any impor- 
tance was between Messrs. Van Vradenburg, Ayres, and Lee 
on the one hand, and the experts on the other. If the former 
witnesses were correct in affirming that there was no indenta- 
tion in the neck directly after death, the theory of strangula- 
tion with a cord drops; although it wotild still be proved by 
the internal appearances that death was caused by mechanical 
asphyxia produced in some other way than by a cord. It must 
be remembered that it is a well-known fact that in suicidal 
hanging, in which the suspension has been only for a few 
minutes, the cord-mark acqtiires its color only some hotirs 
after death, and then becomes more prominent; that Col. 
Dwight was a heavily bearded man, and that his beard might 



602 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

have hid the fresh indentation from an unsuspecting under- 
taker. If, finally, it is considered that there is an absolute con- 
flict of testimony, Dr. Wood leaves to the judgment of others 
the probability of the truth being upon the side of Van Vraden- 
burg and the undertaker, with his assistant, or on that of Drs. 
Swinburne, Sherman, and Bridges, who especially testified to 
the medico-legal facts in the case, and were corroborated in 
almost every particular by the notes written at the autopsy and 
signed by each of the fifteen doctors there present, and also 
by the evidence of two laymen, Freeman and Hitchcock, as to 
the appearance of the indentation at the second autopsy. 

Having thus quoted copiously statements and theories of the 
medical experts from the lengthy report of Dr. Wood, it 
remains for the narrator to note that their conclusions were not 
allowed to pass unchallenged by other medico-legal authorities, 
and by the life underwriters. In some cases conflicting views 
amounted to little more than presumption; in others, they 
took shape in positive conviction. Reference has already been 
made to the belief that Dwight's case was one of substitution, 
that another body had served a vicarious purpose, and that he 
had slipped out of a back door and migrated to a warmer lati- 
tude. Some of the leading managers of our life insurance 
companies, feeling assured themselves, plausibly argue to others 
to this day, that soon after Dwight's alleged disappearance he 
was seen and recognized in Mexico, and afterward in South 
America, where he lived for several years and finally died. 
There were parties who offered to capture and produce Dwight 
provided they were liberally rewarded, but their offer was not 
accepted. The chief difficulty to be overcome by the adher- 
ents of the substitution theory is that of finding a body so 
correspondent in height, weight, measure, and remarkable gen- 
eral appearance as to deceive friends and neighbors who could 
have had no part nor lot in a scheme to defraud insurance 
companies. 

Allusion has also been made to the failure to question Drs. 
Orton and Burr, who attended Dwight in his last illness, even 
after the Court had given permission for them to testify. This 
omission has been a source of lasting regret. With reference 
to his frequent use, or rather misuse, of fluid extract of gelse- 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 603 

mium, it is stated that it was originally prescribed to meet mala- 
rial indications, and that he was thence led to study its toxic 
properties and its fatal doses as well as its remedial applications. 
Its selection for suicidal purpose — if the theory of suicide be 
accepted — was favored by the mistaken notion that the gel- 
semin, the poisonous alkaloid, could not be readily detected 
by chemical reactions. The characteristic effects of a poison- 
ous dose upon the nervous and muscular systems, upon the 
vision, and upon the respiration and circulation were notice- 
able in this case, and if the period of full development was 
shortened by strangulation by his own hands or those of an 
attendant, the end would have been as sure without the rope 
a little later — the pitcher was already broken at the fountain. 

With regard to the claims against the insurers, it should be 
noted here that of the twenty-one companies interested in resist- 
ing payment of Dwight's policies, only one case, as we have 
already remarked, came to a test trial, that of the Germania. 
But in that case, the final decision of the Court of Appeals in 
favor of the company was based upon mere technicality — mis- 
statements in the application as to points material to the risk. 
One by one the companies compromised until only nine were 
left. President William A. Brewer, Jr., of the Washington 
Life Insurance Company, believed it to be for the interest of 
life insurance to prevent further scandal arising from repeated 
trials of this case, and when an offer was made by plaintiff's 
attorneys to settle, by advice of the general counsel of the 
committee in charge of the matter, Hon. Daniel Magone, Mr. 
Brewer paid them $18,000, and received the nine policies sur- 
sendered for cancellation. This was a virtual admission that 
there was no substantial claim; it saved the credit of the com- 
panies; it was a good bargain in its avoidance of litigation, 
inasmuch as no one of the companies could have tried its 
case singly for $2,000. 

THE ARDLAMONT MYSTERY. 

In December, 1893, a trial of unusual interest took place in 
the High Court of Justiciary in Edinburgh, before the Lord 
Justice-Clerk of Scotland (Lord Kingsbury) and a jury of fif- 



604 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

teen. The prisoner was Alfred John Monson, of Kyles of Bute, 
and he was arraigned on two charges, attempted murder and 
murder, of a pupil placed in his educational charge, named W. 
D. C. Hambrough. A man going by the name of Scott, but 
with several aliases, who was not forthcoming, was included in 
the indictment, which read as follows: 

" Alfred John Monson and Edward Sweeney, alias David, ak'as 
Scott, are indicted at the instance of the Hon. John Blair Balfour 
(Lord Advocate); and the charges against you are: (i) That you, 
having formed the design of causing by drowning the death of 
Windsor Dudley Cecil Hambrough, did, in execution thereof, bore, 
or cause to be bored, in the side of a boat a hole, and having plugged 
or closed the said hole, on August loth, 1893, you, A. J. Monson, in 
execution of the said design, did, in Ardlamont Bay, in the Firth of 
Clyde, while the said boat was in deep water, remove, or cause to be 
removed, the plug from the said hole, and admit the water into, and 
did sink the said boat, whereby the said W. D, C. Hambrough was 
thrown into the sea, and you, A. J. Monson and E. Sweeney, did 
thus attempt to murder him; (2) that on August loth, 1893, at a part 
of a wood situated about 360 yards or thereby in an easterly or 
northeasterly direction from Ardlamont House, you, A. J. Monson 
and E. Sweeney, did shoot the said W. D. C. Hambrough and kill 
him, and you, E. Sweeney, being conscious of your guilt in the 
premises, did abscond and flee from justice." 

There being no opening statement by counsel in the Scottish 
courts, the alleged crime may be thus outlined. Three years 
before. Lieutenant Hambrough, eldest son of Major D. A. 
Hambrough, of Sleephill Castle, Isle of Wight, was placed 
under the tutelage of Monson, at Risely Hall, Yorkshire. At 
Whitsuntide, 1893, the family removed to Ardlamont, Kyles of 
Bute, Scotland, with young Hambrough in residence, as a pupil 
of Monson. In August, the man Scott was a visitor at Ardla- 
mont, in the ostensible capacity of an engineer of a small steam 
launch chartered by Monson. On the evening of August 9th, 
Monson and Hambrough were fishing in a small boat oflf Ard- 
lamont Point, when the boat capsized. Hambrough could not 
swim. Monson easily managed to swim to shore, where he 
got another boat, and rescued his companion. Next morning 
they started out early to shoot. Shortly before nine o'clock 
they were seen with Scott entering the home plantation, and 
soon afterwards a shot was fired. According to the prisoner's 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 605 

statement, he had separated from his companion, and, on run- 
ning up after hearing the shot, and getting no reply to his 
inquiry as to what he had got, he found Hambrough lying 
dead in the ditch with a gunshot wound behind his ear. A 
medical certificate of accidental death was given, Hambrough's 
body was removed to Ventnor, and interred in the family vault. 
On August 30th Monson was arrested, and on September 4th 
Hambrough's body was exhumed. Meantime Scott had dis- 
appeared. 

Monson is well connected, being a son of the late Rev. T. 
J. Monson, rector of Kirkby-under-Dale. His mother is a 
daughter of the fifth Viscount Galway. At the time of his 
arrest he was thirty-three years of age. Ten years before, he 
was engaged as an assistant master at Pietermaritzburg. Lieu- 
tenant Hambrough, who belonged to a very old family, was 
heir to large estates in the Isle of Wight and elsewhere. 

Several of the leading members of the Scotch Bar were 
engaged in the trial as counsel for the Crown, and the prisoner 
was ably defended. The examination of witnesses occupied 
the court eight days, more than six days being devoted to the 
evidence called on behalf of the prosecution, while about two 
days and a half sufficed to dispose of the witnesses called for 
the defense. 

In opening the case for the Crown, Mr. James Brand, a civil 
engineer, pointed )ut the localities of the different events on a 
large diagram. Ihe plan showed Ardlamont House situated 
at the north end of an area, with woods on three sides. The 
wood on the east side of the house has the appearance of an 
attenuated triangle with its base to the north. At the extreme 
south end of it is the schoolhouse, from which Monson, Scott, 
and Hambrough were seen to enter the wood on the morning 
of the loth. Along its eastern boundary is a sunk fence, which, 
while at places almost level with the wood, has a retaining 
wall on the east side, four feet in depth. It was at the north- 
east corner of this wood that the shooting fatality occurred. 
Running due west from the spot is a footpath along the side 
of another dyke, ending at the back of the house. Ardlamont 
Bay is on the southwest of the house, and is also approached 
by a pathway through a plantation. The theory of the Crown 



606 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

was that Hambrough was shot from the wood while walking 
along the top of the turf dyke, and the witness Brand gave in 
detail the distances from the spot where the body was found 
to the house and to the gamekeeper's cottage. From the same 
point to a rowan tree was 6 feet 6 inches, to a beech tree 13 
feet 9 inches, and to a Hme tree 16 feet 3 inches. These trees 
were considerably in evidence in the course of the trial, espe- 
cially the rowan, which, by the way, was a sapling about ten 
feet in height. Interest quickened when Mr. Brand came to 
speak of the height on the trees at which pellets were found, 
these ranging from 4 feet 8 inches to 5 feet 10 inches on the 
rowan tree, to 8 feet 8 inches on the lime tree. The wood 
about the spot in question was described as having trees of 
moderate size, with tall undergrowth of whins. .Over the sunk 
fence on the low level is a plantation of new wood, with grass 
and ferns below the retaining wall. In line with the place 
where the body was found was an opening in the whins; and 
describing an experiment he had made, Mr. Brand said that 
by placing a man on the top of the dyke, he got from the gap 
in question the man's head, the rowan tree, and the beech tree 
all in line behind each other. He maintained that along the 
top of the turf fence was ver}^ good walking. Taken next to 
Ardlamont Bay by the Solicitor-General, he described its 
features, and said that except at the horns of the bay there 
were no rocks in it on which a boat could strike and founder. 
Among the most interesting witnesses for the prosecution 
was Mr. James Macnaughton, an Edinburgh gunmaker. He 
described the pellet marks on the rowan tree, and stated that 
their spread was twenty inches, measured horizontally. The 
branches of the lime and the beech, which grew behind the 
rowan tree, intermingled, and taking these together, the spread 
of the pellets there was forty-one inches. That was rather 
more than he would have expected, but he accounted for it 
by the deflection of part of the shot by first striking the rowan 
tree. From experiments he had made with the Ardlamont 
guns and with a gun of hig own, he fixed the distance at which 
a spread of shot could be got such as he found on the rowan 
tree at twenty-t\vo feet. Walking back from the rowan tree in 
the line of fire to that distance brought him to an opening in 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 607 

the brushwood beside a whin bush breast high. Then he took 
an officer the height of Hambrough and put him on the spot 
where the dead man's feet were said to have lain. He raised 
his gun to his shoulder, and the officer's head came into line 
with the injured part of the rowan tree. The spot where he 
stood was about a foot below the level of the ground on which 
the officer stood, so that the muzzle of his gun being slightly 
elevated, would account for the injuries to the lime and beech 
being higher up than those of the rowan tree. Had the gun 
gone off in the ditch or from the top of the wall the shot could 
not possibly have taken such a direction as he had indicated. 

Mr. Macnaughton produced and explained a long series of 
cardboard diagrams illustrative of the effects of shot which he 
had obtained by experimenting with the two Ardlamont guns 
with black powder, Schultze and amberite cartridges such as 
they had been using at Ardlamont — one fact in connection 
therewith being that all traces of scorching disappeared after 
three feet. In deliberate tones, and amid a profound silence 
in court, he gave it as the result of his experiments and from 
an examination of the skull that Hambrough had been shot 
from nine feet off. 

Very quietly the Solicitor-General then brought out the rela- 
tion of this fact to the other distance of twenty-two feet which 
Mr. Macnaughton had mentioned. From the rowan tree to the 
spot where Hambrough's head was lying was 6 feet i ; from his 
head to his feet was put down at 6 feet, as he was nearly that 
height; and adding the 12 feet i to the 9 feet, which the wit- 
ness gave as the distance from which the shot had been fired, 
the summation was brought up to 21 feet i inch. To another 
question, Mr. Macnaughton gave it as his deliberate view that 
the wound could not have been self-inflicted, accidentally or 
otherwise. This evidence made a strong impression on the 
audience. 

When it came to the medical testimony, the veteran Dr. Lit- 
tlejohn detailed the results of the post-mortem examination of 
the body of young Hambrough, exhumed for the purpose, at 
Ventnor. The wound behind the right ear was of triangular 
shape, with the base towards the face. Its extreme length was 
three and a half inches; at its base it had a length of two and a 



608 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

half inches, at its middle it was two inches, and tapered off 
posteriorly. A portion of the middle of the right ear had been 
carried away. On no part of the ragged edges of the wound 
was there any appearance of blackening as if from gunpowder 
or scorching, but four minute specks, apparently metallic, and 
which afterwards, on examination, turned out to be fragment- 
ary portions of lead, were found adhering to the edges. On 
the scalp being dissected, it was found that over a space of an 
irregular shape, and measuring two inches from before back- 
wards, and fully an inch at its greatest breadth, the bone was 
wanting. The skull on that side, it was further said, presented 
a "locaHzed shattered appearance," stretching from below the 
occipital protuberance directly forward in the direction of the 
ear. The base of the temporal bone was shattered. On the 
brain being removed and carefully examined, four metallic 
masses of irregular shape, and resembling shot, were found 
and preserved. A careful autopsy had also been made of the 
other parts of the body, which were found in a healthy condi- 
tion. The general conclusion arrived at was that Hambrough 
died from shock, the result of a gunshot wound, and of sub- 
sequent loss of blood. 

Dr. Macdonald Brown, an anatomical expert, said that the 
main facts elicited in the examination were that the appear- 
ance the wound presented was quite inconsistent with the idea 
that the shot had been fired from below upwards, or from the 
side, or from the front. The direction of the wound was from 
behind, forward. As the outcome of experiments, they had 
found that shot fired at any distance nearer than three feet 
produced results totally dissimilar to those found in Ham- 
brough's skull, and they were therefore inclined to place the 
possible distance at which the shot was fired between three and 
fifteen feet. But he added that undoubtedly the distance at 
which they got results approximating those under consideration 
was nine feet. Under five feet the head would simply have 
been blown to atoms. He also gave it as his view that it was 
absolutely impossible that the injuries had been caused acci- 
dentally by Hambrough himself. After a special examination 
of the skull, Dr. Brown summed up his conclusions in three 
propositions: (i) That the pieces of bone found on the dyke 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 609 

belonged to Hambrough's skull; (2) that the shot which killed 
him was fired from behind; and (3) that the line of that fire 
was not far from horizontal. 

Dr. Heron Watson, who had been a surgeon in the Crimea, 
gave it as his view that the wound had not been self-inflicted; 
that the gun had been fired from behind; that the passage of 
the shot had been almost horizontal, and that nine feet was 
the distance from which the shot had been fired. Less than 
four feet would have injured the skull to a greater extent, and 
at more than eleven or twelve feet they would have looked 
for separate pellet wounds. He believed that Hambrough had 
been shot, and had bled where he was found lying. 

Corroborative testimony was given by Dr. Joseph Bell, who 
said that, after long thinking the matter over, he had not been 
able to make out how, either designedly or accidentally, Ham- 
brough could have shot himself. 

The following is a brief summary of the evidence with regard 
to the insurances which were assumed by the prosecution to 
supply the motive for the alleged murder. 

John Graham M'Lean, district rnanager of the Mutual Life 
Insurance Company of New York, explained that Monson 
called on him in Glasgow on August 2d, and said he was 
guardian of Hambrough, who was coming in for a fortune of 
£200,000,, that Mrs. Monson had advanced £20,000 for the pur- 
chase of Ardlamont, and that he would like an insurance on 
Hambrough's life to cover the amount. The policies were, 
after negotiations, drawn out and signed by Hambrough. They 
were assigned to Mrs. Monson, and a half-yearly premium was 
paid. One policy for £10,000 was completed, and another was 
delivered for completion to Mr. Monson on the 8th. Witness 
learned of the death of Hambrough through the press. Wit- 
ness arranged a meeting with Monson at St. Enoch's Hotel, 
Glasgow, when Monson gave him a story similar to that given 
to other witnesses, except that he did not mention that the body 
lay in a ditch. Monson asked, " How will we go about the 
claim? " Witness replied, " We will arrange after the funeral." 
At a later meeting witness said they must have evidence of 
death from the Fiscal before going furtlier. An important 
letter was read from Hambrough to Mrs. Monson (dated 



GIO PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

August 7 or 9), agreeing to assign the policies to her in con- 
sideration of her advancing the money for the purchase of the 
Ardlamont estate. A copy of this letter was found among the 
insurance papers. 

Mr. David Stewart, resident secretary in Glasgow of the Liv- 
erpool and London and Globe Insurance Company, said that 
on July 25th Monson called in reference to a proposal lodged 
a few days before for an insurance of £50,000 on Hambrough's 
life. The head ofhce declined to accept the risk. Mr. James 
Wardle, the Leeds manager of the same insurance company, 
spoke of a proposal^ on May 28th, for an insurance of £15,000 
on Mr. Hambrough's life. The policy was to be in the name of 
Monson, whose interest was stated to be to cover certain ad- 
vances. Another proposal was lodged, this time for £50,000, 
in the name of Mrs. Monson. The insurance company's direct- 
ors considered the statement of interest too vague, and applied 
for further details. Monson, in reply, inclosed a letter signed 
by Hambrough, dated July 31st, 1893, acknowledging his 
indebtedness to Mrs. Monson to the extent of £26,000, and at 
the same time intimating that, as other arrangements had been 
made, the proposal for £50,000 would be reduced to £26,000. 
Monson also stated that Hambrough was entitled to a sum of 
£200,000 under his great-grandfather's life. The insurance was 
ultimately declined, the directors not being satisfied as to the 
insurable interest of the proposer in Hambrough's life. In 
cross-examination, witness admitted that Monson had told him 
of the transfer by Alajor Hambrough, father of the deceased, of 
his life interest in the estates to the Eagle Insurance Company, 
and that he (Monson) had entered into an agreement to buy 
that interest from the Eagle Insurance Company. William M. 
Wisely, agent in Glasgow for the Scottish Provident Institu- 
tion, said his head office in Edinburgh had received a proposal 
by A/fonson for £50,000 on the life of another, and witness 
accordingly on July nth proceeded to Ardlamont, and had 
an interview with Monson. He understood Monson to be a 
trustee of Hambrough, but was afterwards told by Monson 
that he was no longer trustee. He was also told that unless 
an insurance were effected Monson would be a loser to the 
extent of £49,000. The proposal for £50,000 on Hambrough's 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 611 

life was signed by Mrs. Monson, whose interest was stated to 
be to cover advances made and liability in connection with 
the Hambrough estates. The company never received proof 
of Mrs. Monson's insurable interest in young Hambrough's 
life, and the transaction fell through. Monson subsequently 
intimated that, in consequence of other arrangements, the in- 
surance would be reduced to i 10,000, "to cover the money 
actually due from Mr. Cecil Hambrough on his attaining 
twenty-one." Cross-examined: On August 9th, the day before 
Hambrough's death, witness v/rote to Monson that, subject to 
satisfactory evidence of Mrs. Monson's interest, and to the 
payment of the premium of ii8i 5s., his company were pre- 
pared to issue a policy of iio,ooo. None of the arrangements 
had been hidden from young Hambrough; everything was 
done quite openly. The first proposal had been made by 
Hambrough on his own life. 

At the close of the evidence for the defense on the eighth 
day, Mr. Asher (Solicitor-General) addressed the jury. At the 
outset he asked for a verdict of guilty on both charges — 
attempted murder, and murder. He told the jury to dismiss 
from their minds everything except the evidence before the 
court. He gave a consecutive history of the case and the facts 
which formed a complete chain, establishing, as he claimed, 
link by link the guilt of the prisoner of both crimes. He dealt 
fully with the negotiations in respect of the life interest in the 
Hambrough estates, on which the Eagle Insurance Com- 
pany had advanced £37,000, and of the attempt made by Major 
Hambrough, after the foreclosure by the Eagle on the failure 
of the payment of interest, to effect a rearrangement through 
Mr. Tottenham, the financial agent, and then himself set out 
at length the financial difBculties in which the Monsons foimd 
themselves. Coming to the assiu-ances, he detailed the several 
attempts made to effect assurances on the life of Cecil Ham- 
brough. First came the negotiations with the Scottish Provi- 
dent Institution for an insurance of £50,000 on Cecil Ham- 
brough's life, payable to Mrs. Monson. That was declined 
because of the failure to prove Mrs. Monson's insurable inter- 
est. Tlien came the proposal for £10,000, the facts from begin- 
ning to end supplying no explanation, except that the insur- 



612 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

ance office was told falsehoods for the purpose of deceiving. 
The next proposals were to the Liverpool and London and 
Globe. Here, again, the difficulties being too great to be 
faced, the original proposal was reduced from £50,000 to a 
smaller sum, " to cover advances made at the request of Cecil 
Hambrough, to cover money due for his maintenance, extend- 
ing over four years, and also to cover certain liabilities incurred 
in connection with the Hambrough estates." Not one particle 
of liability in connection with the Hambrough estates had been 
incurred either by Monson or his wife. A letter was sent by 
Cecil Hambrough in these words: " Dear Sir: — I am requested 
by Mrs. Agnes Monson to write you that she has an interest 
in my life to the extent of £26,000, and I have given her an 
undertaking in which I have agreed to pay her this sum on 
my attaining twenty-one — " There was an ominous sound 
about the words that followed, — "if I live until then." The 
insurance companies saw through the flimsiness of the pro- 
posals. The Scottish Provident did offer a iio,ooo policy, but 
upon a condition which was never fulfilled, namely, that Mrs. 
Monson's insurable interest in Hambrough's life was proved 
to their satisfaction. Then there was a change of tactics, and 
they applied for policies directly in the name of Cecil Ham- 
brough. The existence of these policies they persistently con- 
cealed until they were put forward after the boy's death with 
a view to recovering the money. Monson went to the Glas- 
gow office of the Mutual Life Insurance Company of New 
York for two policies of £10,000 each. This impecunious 
occupant of Ardlamont represented that Mrs. Monson, who 
had not two shillings in her pocket, was going to pay £20,000 
for Ardlamont in the interest of young Hambrough, and that 
these two policies were to secure her interest. But the pre- 
mium had to be paid; there was no time to wait until the 
policies could be got from New York; so the expedient was 
adopted of taking out a temporary policy subsisting in any 
event for sixty days, and upon which the terms of premium 
were for half a year only. The money for the premium had to 
be found, and he had to ask the jury's attention closely to the 
circumstances under which it was found, and they were coming 
now near to the tragic event. Flagrant misrepresentation and 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 613 

treachery were resorted to by the prisoner. If testimony from 
human hps was to be beHeved, Monson resorted to the gross- 
est falsehood ever put upon paper to secure the command of 
£250, of which he was in sore want at the time. A letter 
absolutely false was written by Monson to his friend Totten- 
ham, the money-lender, in order to secure the £250 for the 
purpose of a deposit. He falsely represented that he had pur- 
chased the Ardlamont estate, without having even been in 
communication either with the owner or his agent. The £250 
secured by nefarious means was sent by check, and placed to 
Mrs. Monson's account, and on August 8th Monson went to 
the estate ofBce in Edinburgh in order that there might be 
something in existence of the nature of negotiations for the 
purchase of Ardlamont. Having requested the insurance 
office to get the policy ready by August 8th, he went to Glas- 
gow, carrying in his hand a letter which Cecil Hambrough 
had been persuaded to write, in which he asked that his two 
insurance policies of £20,000 each might be delivered to Mr. 
and Mrs. Monson, as he had assigned the policies to Mrs. 
Monson for consideration received. Monson returned to 
Ardlamont with the policies in his pocket, accompanied by 
his mysterious friend Scott, whom he introduced to a passen- 
ger on the boat as a gentleman from the estate ofifice. On 
the next day, August 9th, occurred events in connection with 
which he asked the jury to say that the prisoner was guilty 
of the crimes alleged against him. The Solicitor-General then 
put before the jury the whole of the events connected with 
the fishing expedition and the shooting party, and in conclud- 
ing a speech of six hours' duration, said that if the jury agreed 
with him that the prisoner's tortuous misstatements were only 
consistent with the theory of his guilt, then they would con- 
vict him of the crimes with which he was charged. 

On behalf of the defense, Mr. Comrie Thomson, in address- 
ing the jury, said he felt that, after careful consideration of the 
facts, they would be driven to the conclusion that the charge 
had not been substantiated. He pointed out the difference of 
opinion between the expert and scientific witnesses, and said 
the first question they must ask was, "Is it proved?" He felt 
confident their answer would be in the negative. He depre- 



614 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

cated the action of the newspapers — unintentional though he 
believed it to be — in creating prejudice in the public mind by 
the publication of paragraphs about the prisoner. He argued 
that it was to the interest of the Monsons to keep Cecil Ham- 
brough alive, as he was their means of support. Then he 
dealt with the direction of the fatal shot, and the proximity of 
the gun barrel, drawing inferences favorable to the prisoner 
from the evidence on those points. Passing on, he referred 
to the question of insurances, and submitted that at the time 
they were negotiated there was a legitimate purpose, and the 
proposal to insure Cecil was no new idea. The carrying out 
of Monson's arrangements depended entirely upon the young 
man living until 1894, and there was no motive for compass- 
ing his death. At the time when Cecil Hambrough died, 
there was no obligation by any insurance office in the world to 
pay money to Monson in respect of his death. Therefore, the 
whole Crown case, as based upon the insurance, crumbled 
into dust. The learned counsel next dealt with the charge of 
attempted murder by drowning. If an attempt to commit 
murder had been made, Hambrough must have noticed it, and, 
in that case, would he have gone home and drunk whiskey 
and water with the man who attempted to compass his end? 
Discussing the important question, '* Where was the body first 
struck down?" Mr. Thomson argued that the evidence was 
consistent with the prisoner's statement, and that the Crown 
testimony as to the distance and direction of the shot failed 
utterly. The Crown had said the distance from the muzzle to 
the wound was nine feet, but the defense had demonstrated 
that at such a distance there would be a scattering of pellets, 
which had not taken place in this case. 

The Lord Justice-Clerk follov.'ed with his summing up to 
the jury. At the outset he observed that the case was purely 
one of circumstantial evidence, and must be subjected to the 
minutest criticism. Glancing at the history of the case before 
the alleged crimes, he said it unbared a very dark side of social 
life. He then proceeded to analyze the evidence in reference 
to the alleged transactions for the purchase of Ardlamont. He 
pointed out it was in the prisoner's favor that in the letter he 
wrote to Tottenham asking for £250 to pay the deposit money. 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 615 

he said it might be drawn in favor of Me&srs. Anderson, who 
were agents for the Ardlamont estate. His lordship also 
observed that though there was a great deal of lying, it was a 
long way from being dishonest to being murderous. The only 
weight which the jury should give to these lying episodes 
should be in so far as they were directly connected with the 
motive alleged by the prosecution. There was no doubt that 
about this time the affairs of Mr. and Mrs. Monson were prac- 
tically desperate. Where evidence was circumstantial only, the 
question of motive became of enormous importance, for if it 
were clearly proved it was of the greatest importance to the 
prosecution, but if it was displaced it was vastly in favor of 
the prisoner. Dealing with the question of Scott, he said he 
did not think there was any strong evidence of a plot between 
him and the prisoner, and he could not see any inducement to 
Scott to be mixed up in the alleged crime. There was some- 
thing mysterious about his presence at Ardlamont^ but it was 
the duty of the Crown to clear that up, and if they had been 
unable to find the missing man, no point must be made against 
the prisoner for their failing to do so. His lordship next 
reviewed evidence relating to the boating expedition, and said 
that if the jury believed an attempted murder had been com- 
mitted, then it would throw considerable light on the proceed- 
ings of the next day. Coming to the fatal day, he went with 
considerable detail through the evidence, and then, comment- 
ing on the theoretical evidence, said that unless the jury were 
satisfied that the pellet marks on the rowan tree were made at 
the same time as Hambrough was shot, then the whole theory 
of the Crown on that question fell to the ground. 

The jury retired to consider their verdict at four o'clock, and 
after an absence of three-quarters of an hour returned into court 
with a verdict of " Not proven." The result was received with 
cheering, not only by the people in court, but by a crowd out- 
side in Parliament-square. " Not proven " is a form of verdict 
used in Scotland in criminal prosecutions, when the jury think 
there is some foundation for the charge, but the evidence is 
not strong enough against the prisoner to warrant a verdict 
of guilty. A verdict of not proven is substantially a verdict 
of acquittal. The prisoner cannot be tried afterwards, even 



616 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

though new and conclusive evidence come to light after the 
verdict. But though the prosecution failed to prove its case, 
Monson left the dock enveloped by heavy clouds of doubt and 
suspicion. 

After the trial, attention was drawn to the issue, who would 
profit by Cecil Hambrough's death? The London Review, in 
discussing the situation, laying aside question as to the actual 
criminality in what was undoubtedly a murder, and dealing' 
merely with the insurance aspect, presented the following points 
for consideration: 

1. First, Mrs. Monson. The assignment of Cecil Hambrough, it is 
claimed, was known by Monson to be invalid, and a strong point was 
made in his favor on this, for the defense and in the summing up. 
But whether money would come to any one, is the real question at 
issue. 

2. Granting invalidity of the assignment, the next of kin would 
claim, viz., Major Hambrough. Now Major Hambrough was under 
heavy financial obligations to Monson and Tottenham. Monson 
also owed money to Tottenham. Money payable to Major Ham- 
brough would therefore be intercepted by his creditors, viz., Monson, 
Tottenham and others. And money payable to Tottenham by Monson 
would be intercepted by the former. 

3. It is obvious, therefore, that assignment or no assignment, 
Monson would profit by Cecil Hambrough's death now, though he 
might or might not do better at his majority. 

4. Tottenham certainly would profit, as he had purchased a judg- 
ment against Cecil Hambrough, which, being for necessaries, would 
be a valid claim against next of kin of a minor. 

5. Monson and the financiers at the back of Tottenham and Major 
Hambrough were therefore certain to profit by any payment by an 
insurance company. 

6. But here is where the real trouble begins. No less than a dozen 
life-insurance companies were at various times approached on the 
matter of Cecil Hambrough's life assurance, and to each and all was 
the suggestion made of assuring Cecil Hambrough's life for the benefit 
of Mrs. Monson, who professed to have claims for a large amount. 
To each of the life offices, however, this question of Mrs. Monson's 
insurable interest proved an insurmountable stumbling block. In 
the case of the Mutual Life of New York the same difficulty presented 
itself; but that was got over by the plan of young Hambrough insur- 
ing his life in his own name, being at liberty afterwards to properly 
assign the policies to Mrs. Monson. It seems to have been under- 
stood on the side of the insurance companies, and to a more limited 
extent by Monson, that this assignment by a minor would be invalid 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 617 

unless accompanied by the consent of his father, as next of kin, and 
the primary beneficiary, in the event of Cecil Hambrough not 
reaching the age of twenty-one. 

7. Now it was precisely here where Monson overreached himself. 
Cecil Hambrough had been proposed to the Reliance Mutual, and 
had been postponed for medical reasons. In the proposal made to 
the Liverpool and London and Globe this episode of the Reliance 
Mutual was mentioned, and for good reason; namely, that the Liver- 
pool and London and Globe knew all about it already. The Mutual 
Life of New York was aware of the declinature by the Reliance 
Mutual, or of the active canvassing amongst the dozen ofHces in con- 
nection with this proposed assurance. The proposal made to the 
Mutual, therefore, contained no mention of these various transactions, 
which, if referred to, would have made the issue of a life policy by 
that office a somewhat doubtful possibility. It is to be noted that it 
was on the 2d of August, on declinature by the Liverpool and London 
and Globe, that Monson went to the Glasgow office of the Mutual of 
New York. 

8. It follows, therefore, that the proposal made to the Mutual Life 
of New York was a fraudulent one, and absolutely invalid. But as 
the ingenious Mr. Loftus Tottenham suggested in the box at Edin- 
burgh, as he was to get £4,000 himself out of the Mutual money, there 
was every reason to try, as it was expressed, " to bluff " the com- 
pany — an unfortunate expression which he afterwards tried to explain, 
saying that he meant to have a try for the money. Even as the 
creditor of Major Hambrough, the next of kin, all possibility of 
" bluffing " the Mutual Life of New York was finished at an interview 
between Monson, the Mutual agent, and the Procurator Fiscal, in the 
streets of Inverary, on the 29th of August. 

In due course, December 3d, 1894, an action was brought 
in the Queen's Bench Division, before the Lord Chief Justice 
(Sir Charles Russell) and a special jury, by Dudley Albert 
Hambrough, the father and administrator of the estate of 
Windsor Dudley Cecil Hambrough, deceased, against the 
Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York, in respect of 
two life policies of i 10,000 each. His lordship reviewed the 
evidence with great care and at great length, clearly setting 
forth the breach of warranty, the fraudulent misrepresentations 
and their materiality. When he concluded, the jury retired, 
and, after an absence of half an hour, returned with the follow- 
ing answers to the questions put to them: The application to 
the Reliance was deferred ; the deceased did apply to the Liver- 
pool and London and Globe; he was declined by the latter: he 



618 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

was aware of the unfavorable opinion as to albumen; fraudu- 
lent statements were made, they were material, and they influ- 
enced the insurers; Monson was the party substantially effect- 
ing the insurance, and with the consent and acquiescence of 
Cecil Hambrough. There was no disposition to press the 
charge of fraud against Cecil Hambrough. His lordship noted 
that in his opinion the proposal was the basis of the contract, 
and that if any statement in it was untrue the policy could not 
be enforced by any one. The only effect of the policy being 
absolutely void would be that the premium paid on it could 
be recovered; it was immaterial to decide that, but his opinion 
was that it was void altogether. Judgment would be for the 
defendants with costs. 

The Mutual Life Insurance Company showed its readiness 
from the start to acquit itself of the claim, but as the suspicious 
circumstances attending the Ardlamont mystery were devel- 
oped, the management was bound on grounds of public policy 
to decline payment and defend action. Practically, the grounds 
of resistance were three in number. First, that no action by 
Major Hambrough would lie, because the policies had been 
assigned to Mrs. Monson; secondly, that Cecil Hambrough 
had warranted certain statemicnts in his application for insur- 
ance as true which were untrue; and, thirdly, that the poHcies 
had been obtained by fraud on the part of young Hambrough 
or of Mr. Monson, who was acting as his agent, or rather as 
the controller of his conduct, in the matter of the insurance. 
Of these contentions the most important one was the plea that 
Mr. Cecil Hambrough had himself vitiated the policies in ques- 
tion by warranting certain statements in his application for 
insurance which proved to be untrue. It is pleasant to know 
that " during the whole course of a trial lasting some three 
days there was not the faintest attempt to prejudice the case 
by reason of the Mutual Life being an American company." 
Its action received the distinct and emphasized approval of thr. 
British press, both professional and general. Of course, the 
conditions were different from those where a widow and chil- 
dren attired in black are part of the scenery, for here there was 
only the abstract body of creditors of Major Hambrough's 
estate. Major Hambrough having been imported into the busi- 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 619 

ness by the purest accident in the world, and against his will 
even. 

A few weeks afterward, the hearing of the appeal of Major 
Hambrough from the judgment and verdict of the Lord Chief 
Justice and the special jury, took place in the Court of Appeal, 
before the Master of the Rolls and Lord Justices Lopes and 
Rigby. 

In dismissing the appeal, the Master of the Rolls mad^ 
short work of it. In the course of his review he said : 

Mr. Monson and his wife had taken a young man — ^he did not want 
to say much about the wife, for he believed she was just as much 
under the influence of the man Monson as this young boy — pretending 
he was to teach him, and got him to Scotland, and by himself, by 
inducing or compelling his wife to exercise influence over this young 
man. He seemed to have obtained such an influence over this weak 
man that he was what the Lord Chief Justice had graphically 
described as " like so much putty in their hands." That was to say, 
by telling him to do a thing they made him do it, and he had no 
will of his own. They could do just as they pleased, and Monson 
resolved to obtain a very large insurance on his life, and the jury had 
found that by his influence over him got him to acquiesce in anything 
that he (Monson) did, and he acquiesced so completely that he 
allowed Monson to get an insurance on his life in any way or form 
Monson chose. 

He proposed to get the insurance by putting it in the name of Mrs. 
Monson. He said he was the trustee and guardian of this young 
man in absolute falsehood. He said he was his tutor. What on 
earth he taught him except something bad he could not say. Monson 
said this young man was to come into a fortune of £200,000, and had 
contracted to buy the Ardlamont estate for £48,000, and that Mrs. 
Monson was lending him money, and therefore she could honestly 
wish, in order to repay herself, to insure his life. 

A greater mass of falsehoods was never told by anybody. A diffl- 
culty arose as to the time the policy could be got through, and it 
was suggested, in order to avoid delay, that it should be taken out 
in Hambrough's name, and this was agreed to. What Monson had 
said about the young man was written down to read to Hambrough. 
and he agreed to it, but Monson was at his back. The policies were 
obtained by an infamous number of lies, and Hambrough's repre- 
sentative could not come forward and say, " I know that the policies 
were obtained by all that Monson said. I know that he is an infamous 
liar and deceived the company, but I will take the policies and have 
nothing to do with the lies at all." He was of opinion that Monson 
was acting as Hambrough's agent, and therefore any falsehood told 
by him could be used against the person for whom he was acting. 



620 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

As to the other questions, he quite agreed with the decision of the 
Lord Chief Justice. The policy had been obtained by fraud, and 
therefore the company was not liable. 

Lord Justices Lopes and Rigby concurred, and the appeal was 
dismissed with costs. 

THE WACKERLE PUZZLE. 

No case within our knowledge has presented such conflict- 
ing testimony and led to such opposite conclusions as that of 
VValburga Wackerle in the prosecution of claims against tv/o 
prominent insurance companies. The persistence of this 
woman under the most discouraging circumstances not only 
elicited sympathy from the public, but even from the officers 
of the insurance companies who resisted her claims, and it 
was only from the fullest and firmest conviction that her claims 
were fraudulent that they were able to resist them. This con- 
viction, forcible from the first presentation of the claim, was 
strengthened by subsequent and exhaustive examination of the 
circumstances of the case. The fact that the death of the claim- 
ant's husband has never been proven; that the alleged remains 
were never satisfactorily identified ; that another person and not 
Wackerle was known to have been killed at the time of his 
alleged death; that Wackerle was found and fully identified by 
scores of neighbors and friends ; that he was a pensioner of the 
government, were sufficient to justify resistance, no one will 
deny. On the other hand, there was conflicting evidence as 
to the identity of Wackerle. His poor memory respecting his 
children, their names, etc., influenced the jury, no doubt, to 
render a verdict as they did. The following history of the case 
we reprint from " Rough Notes," Indianapolis, by permission 
of the publishers. 

In Carver County, Minnesota, lived a plain, honest German 
farmer by the name of William Wackerle. Through his econo- 
mical habits and untiring industry he accumulated sufficient 
to purchase a farm and live comfortably upon it. At the call 
of the government for troops to suppress the Southern seces- 
sion movement, he enlisted and became a member of Company 
H, Ninth Regiment Minnesota Volunteer Infantry. He served 
two years in the Union army and was discharged on account 
of sickness. 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 621 

In the year 1867, he sold his farm and other property for 
$3,000, the proceeds of which Mrs. Wackerle took. They 
moved to Milwaukee, Wis., where, under the persistent impor- 
tuning of his wife, he insured his life for $3,000 in the ^tna 
Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., and $4,000 in the 
Mutual Life of New York. The policies were made payable, 
in the event of his death, to his wife, Walburga Wackerle. 
Soon after obtaining the insurance they moved to Detroit, 
Mich. They had resided but a short time at the latter place 
when Wackerle left his family, and, it appears, went to Cali- 
fornia. His wife followed him there, and through advertising, 
found him at Sacramento. Subsequently they came East, and 
took up their residence in Quincy, 111. They had resided there 
but a little while when Wackerle again left home for parts 
unknown. This was in the latter part of the year 1871. After 
waiting over a year and not hearing from her husband, Mrs. 
Wackerle again started in pursuit of him. When she arrived 
in St. Louis she called upon John Wackerle, his brother, for 
the purpose of ascertaining, if possible, where William had 
gone. As John knew the trials his brother had endured, and 
that he intended to abandon his wife, he told her he believed 
her husband had gone South. She immediately started upon 
the supposed trail. When she arrived in Shreveport, La., she 
got information that the year previous, December 25th, 1872, 
a man was killed on the Texas Pacific Railroad by being run 
over by a train of cars, nine miles from that city. Assuming 
that it was her husband, she commenced at once to procure 
evidence to that effect. The agent of the ^tna Company, at 
Shreveport, furnished her with blanks indicating what was 
necessary to establish his identity and death. 

In February, 1874, Mrs. Wackerle visited the ^tna office, in 
Hartford, with the " proofs of death." She represented to the 
officers of the company that she was very poor, and that she 
had endured great hardships in getting the " proofs " and reach- 
ing Hartford. Her general appearance indicated the truthful- 
ness of her statements. She was told by the president of the 
^tna that the company was entitled to ninety days in which 
to investigate the justness of the claim, and if found correct 
it would be paid promptly when due. Mrs. Wackerle also pre- 



622 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

sented the claim to the Mutual Life, of New York, and was 
told by that company that as the ^tna was to make an investi- 
gation of the case, it would wait the action of that company, 
and be governed by its conclusions. 

The " proofs of death " furnished by Mrs. Wackerle were 
incomplete and unsatisfactory, and the justness of the claim 
could only be determined by an investigation. Two affidavits 
identified the party killed as Wackerle. In one, the deponent 
was made to say that on the 25th of December, 1872, " a man 
by the name of William Wackerle, well known to the deponent, 
having worked with him on section 2 of the Texas Pacific Rail- 
road — was killed by being run over by the freight train "... 
and further says that he " saw said Wackerle after his death, 
and knows him to have been the same party he knew alive 
by that name." The other affidavit stated "that on the 25th 
of December, 1872, one William Wackerle, a laborer on the 
Texas Pacific Railroad, was killed at a place about nine miles 
from the city of Shreveport, by being run over by a train of 
the Texas Pacific Railway Company; that he was present and 
saw said William Wackerle, deceased, when his body was sent 
to Shreveport for coroner's inquest and interment; that he has 
frequently heard the deceased spell his name W-e-c-k-e-r-1-e to 
deponent." The certificate of death and burial gave the name 
of the deceased as " unknown." Mrs. Wackerle furnished 
other affidavits in which it was stated that a man was killed 
on the 25th of December, 1872, and they "have since heard 
and been led to believe it was WilHam Wackerle." 

The companies had every reason to believe that a man had 
been killed upon the railroad near Shreveport, as alleged, but 
the evidence showing it was Wackerle, and the husband of the 
claimant, was of a questionable character, to say the least. In 
order to ascertain the facts, an employe of the ^tna went to 
Shreveport and made careful inquiry. He ascertained that the 
two affidavits identifying Wackerle as the party killed, were 
made by ignorant freedmen, who could neither read nor write. 
When the affidavits they had made were read to them they 
declared that their ignorance had been taken advantage of, 
and what the affidavits contained was not true. They simply 
intended to state that a man was killed on the Texas Pacific 
Railroad on the 25th of December, 1872. 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. ^623 

The man killed belonged to a gang of " construction hands " 
employed by the railroad, and at the time the engine struck 
him he was lying drunk upon the track. The body was taken 
to Shreveport and an inquest was held in the evening. As no 
one appeared to identify the body, it was buried as one *' un- 
known." The verdict of the inquest was to the effect that no 
blame was attachable to the employes of the road. 

The imposition practiced upon the freedmen, together with 
other circumstances, which will appear hereafter, led the com- 
pany to pursue the investigation, with a view of learning, if 
possible, zvho the party was that was killed. It was found that 
the name of William Wackerle did not appear on the pay-roll 
of the railroad, and this fact was certified to by the road-master, 
paymaster, assistant treasurer, and foreman of the gang to 
which the man who was killed belonged. 

The road-master made affidavit " that to the best of his 
knowledge and belief, William Wackerle was not in the employ 
of the Texas Pacific Railway Company, as alleged, and that he 
knows of no such man having been killed on said road, but 
to his best knowledge and belief, the only man killed on said 
road about the time, at or near the place at which it is said 
William Wackerle was killed, was a man named Frank Ettine, 
who was an employe of the road at said time." 

The paymaster of the road stated, under oath, that the name 
of William Wackerle did not appear on any of the pay-rolls 
of said company, as an employe or otherwise, and that to his 
best knowledge and belief, the man killed by the train on or 
about the 25th of December, 1872, at or near the place where 
it is said that William Wackerle was killed, was a man by the 
name of Frank Ettine, who was at the time of his death an 
employe of the Texas Pacific Railway Company. 

The foreman of the gang of men engaged in track repairs 
on the Texas Pacific Railroad, to which the party killed be- 
longed, made affidavit that on or about the 25th of December, 
1872, one Frank Ettine was killed by a train going east, near 
Shreveport, and there was no other man killed during that day, 
or at that place; that he knew the man killed, personally, he 
having belonged to his gang for about three and one-half 
months, and during that time was under his direction. Frank 



624 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

Ettine was a native of Belgium. He also stated that he never 
knew any man by the name of William Wackerle. Frank 
Ettine was about five feet six and one-half inches high, fair 
hair, gray eyes, light complexion and whiskers inclined to be 
of a reddish tinge. He further stated that when Mrs. Wackerle 
first came to him she described her husband as five feet ten or 
eleven inches in height, weight i8o to 190 pounds, high fore- 
head, high cheek bones, black hair and eyes. He told her that 
the man killed was not her husband. 

During the investigation Mrs. Wackerle remained in Hart- 
ford. She made special effort to extend her acquaintance and 
enlist the sympathy of the leading citizens of the city. The 
rehearsal of her trials in getting the " proofs," and of the diffi- 
culties of her long journey to make personal application to the 
company for the insurance, was very interesting, and in the 
absence of knowledge of the facts would generally be accepted 
and believed. 

With the information the company had there was no course 
to pursue but to dechne to pay. There was clear evidence 
that the man killed was not her husband, but a man by the 
name of Frank Ettine. 

Mrs. Wackerle denounced the company in unmeasured terms 
because of its refusal to recognize and pay her claim ; and from 
the people to whom she related her story she obtained much 
sympathy. She returned to 5hreveport with a view of perfect- 
ing the proof of her husband's death. Along the route she 
permitted representatives of the press to " interview " her re- 
specting her grievances, and columns were printed denouncing 
the companies for refusing to pay. Patrons of life insurance 
entered their protests against the position taken by the com- 
panies, claiming that it was calculated to discredit the business. 

At this time Mrs. Wackerle had other " strings to her bow." 
There was due to the man Ettine, at the time of his death, for 
services to the Texas Pacific Railroad the sum of $40. The 
amount was paid to another laborer claiming to be a cousin of 
Ettine. If she was successful in establishing the fact that her 
husband was the man killed upon the railroad, it was her inten- 
tion to pursue the road, not only for the $40, but also for 
damages for killing him. 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 625 

She made demand at the general office of the road, in Phila- 
delphia, for the $40. Although the sum had been previously 
paid, to prevent the annoyance she gave the officers, they 
offered to pay her $40 provided she would sign a receipt releas- 
ing the road from all liability for damages. She declined to 
sign the receipt they requested, and denounced the officers for 
attempting such an imposition on her. She informed them 
they would yet have to pay smartly for attempting to cheat her. 

During her travels, Mrs. Wackerle ascertained that a certain 
bounty was paid by the government to its discharged soldiers, 
if applied for within a certain time. The limitation had expired 
before she became aware of the law granting the extra bounty. 
She went to Washington and insisted upon her claim being 
recognized. She told the story of her hardships, about her 
claims on the insurance companies and the railroad. As the 
widow of Mr. Wackerle, who was a faithful soldier, she de- 
manded of the government that in some way it pay her the 
bounty to which she would have been entitled if applied for 
in time. The Secretary of War yielded to her solicitations and 
wrote a letter, directed to the Committee on Claims, advising 
that a special act be introduced into Congress granting her, as 
the widow of Wackerle, a bounty. Press of business pre- 
vented the introduction of the bill, and it went over to the 
next Congress. 

Mrs. Wackerle's trip to Shreveport was followed by the 
customary newspaper assaults upon the insurance companies. 
She brought suit against the ^tna Life in the District Court 
of Caddo Parish, Louisiana. Messrs. Looney & Elstner, attor- 
neys at Shreveport, acted for her, and Messrs. Alexander & Bell 
were employed by the company. The cause came up for trial 
before Judge A. D. Land. 

The trial was of unusual length, and elicited much interest 
among the people of Shreveport and vicinity. Some of the 
testimony introduced by the plaintiff was of a questionable 
character. Several of the witnesses had unenviable reputations, 
and it was shown in court that they were not worthy of con- 
fidence. It was admitted by the company that a man was 
killed, but it claimed that he was not Wackerle. The court 
and jury, however, concluded that as there was some indirect 



626 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

testimony to the effect that it was Wackerle, and as the 
widow (f) insisted that it was her husband, they would give 
her the benefit of the doubt, and a verdict was given in her 
favor. The Etna's attorney immediately gave notice of an 
appeal to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, July term, 1878. 

After the trial, Mrs. Wackerle again visited Hartford and 
New York with a letter from one of her attorneys directed to 
the ^tna Company, in which he urged that the appeal be with- 
drawn. He stated that he recognized the company's right to 
know that the man killed was the identical party it insured. 
Having established that fact to the satisfaction of the District 
Court, he relied on the high reputation of the company for 
fair dealing " not to pursue this poor woman any further." 

Mrs. Wackerle's trip North was followed by another strain 
of newspaper abuse of the companies. An item appeared in 
the New York Mail, referring to the case, which came to the 
notice of a Mr. Joseph Weinmann, of Faribault, Minn. He 
recognized the name of William Wackerle as a member of his 
company in the Ninth Minnesota Regiment, and immediately 
wrote to the publishers of the Mail that he could give the 
company important information if put in correspondence with 
it. The letter was forwarded to the ^tna, and an adjuster 
was immediately sent to Faribault for the purpose of ascertain- 
ing what Mr. Weinmann knew respecting the case. The ad- 
juster found that Mr. Weinmann was a respectable citizen, and 
during the war was First Lieutenant of Company H, Ninth 
Regiment Minnesota Volunteers, and that William Wackerle 
was a member of his company for about two years. He had 
known Wackerle well, and had been in correspondence with 
him for some time, Wackerle's object in writing Mr. Wein- 
mann being to obtain his assistance in procuring a pension 
from the government. Mr. Weinmann showed the adjuster 
a letter he had recently received from Wackerle, written in 
California, in which he said, " I would ask you to make some 
inquiries about my wife. Can you find out her whereabouts? 
She used to live in Ouincy, 111., and I have heard that she 
married again. I was insured in two life-insurance companies 
because she forced me to, and T did it to have peace with her, 
but it grew worse afterwards, and had I not left her I would 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 627 

be dead long ago. I left her everything — bed, clothes, and 
the money of my land, and what I had earned. I worked for 
my passage to California." 

While the officers of the company had not believed that Mr. 
Wackerle was dead, this was the first reliable information they 
had received of his whereabouts. A representative of the com- 
pany and Lieutenant Weinmann at once started for California, 
and on arriving at San Francisco found that Wackerle was 
some two hundred miles up the coast, in Humboldt County. 
A friendly telegram was sent, which brought him to them. 
He was found to be the identical William Wackerle whom the 
company had been searching for so long. He gave to the 
Etna's representative his reasons for leaving his wife, among 
other things because he considered her a desperate woman, 
and he was afraid she would take his life for the purpose of 
obtaining the insurance. The follov\^ing affidavit was made by 
Mr. Wackerle: 



State of California, , ^^ 

ss. 



County of San Francisco, j 

William Wackerle, of Hydesville, in the county of Humboldt and 
State of California, being duly sworn, deposes and says that he was 
born in Germany on the 20th day of June, A. D. 1826; that his 
father's name was John Michael Wackerle, and his mother's name 
was Jacobinal Wackerle; that on the 14th day of November, A. D. 
1858, in the town of Shakopie, in the State of Minnesota, he was 
married to Walburga Schneider, daughter of Antonio and Magda- 
line Schneider, and the marriage ceremony was performed by Cor- 
nelius Weisman, a Catholic priest; that he resided in said State of 
Minnesota until about the year 1865; that he was a member of Com- 
pany H, Ninth Regiment Minnesota Volunteer Infantry; that he 
moved his family to Milwaukee, in the State of Wisconsin, and while 
a resident of said Milwaukee he made application for and received 
of the ^tna Life Insurance Company of Hartford, Conn., a policy 
of insurance on his life for the sum of $3,000, payable in the event 
of his death to his wife, Walburga Wackerle; that he subsequently 
moved with his wife to Detroit in the State of Michigan. While 
residing in Detroit he surrendered the said policy of insurance or 
discontinued payments under same and took from said company in 
its stead another policy of same amount — $3,000 — and payable to his 
wife, the said Walburga Wackerle, in the event of his death, the 
latter policy dated May, 1869; that he left his wife and went to 
Sacramento, in the State of California; that she subsequently came 
to the place where he was then living; that in company with his 



628 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

wife they went to Quincy, in the State of Illinois, and there resided 
together till the year 1871, when he again left his wife and went to 
Sacramento, in the State of California, and is now residing in Hydes- 
ville, in the State of California; and that he does not know the where- 
abouts of said Walburga Wackerle, not having heard from her for 
several years. 

(Signed) William Wackerle. 

Subscribed and sworn to before me this 24th day of June, A. D. 
1878. 

(Signed) John Hamill, Notary Public. 

While the adjuster and Mr. Weinmann were waiting for the 
arrival of Mr. Wackerle, two German brothers by the name 
of John Hein and J. N. Hein, formerly residents of Minnesota 
and neighbors of Wackerle, and who knew him and his wife 
intimately, were found at San Francisco, and arrangements 
were made for them to meet Wackerle upon his arrival. Im- 
mediately upon the landing of the steamer the four gentlemen 
in question recognized each other and had a long talk relative 
to incidents which had occurred in their experience in Minne- 
sota while living as neighbors. Affidavits of Weinmann and 
of the two Heins were taken, which fully corroborated that 
made by Wackerle. All of the gentlemen went to a photo- 
grapher, and their pictures were taken separately and also in a 
group. These papers and photographs were forwarded to 
Attorney Bell at Shreveport, for the purpose of being presented 
at the hearing of the case which was to come up in a few days 
on the appeal. The facts set forth in Wackerle's affidavit 
accorded with the statements made by his wife. Wackerle 
related to the adjuster in an unhesitating and straightforward 
manner his experience while living with her — many incidents 
of which Mrs. Wackerle had previously given, and were known 
to the adjuster. 

Upon the presentation to the Court of Appeals of the evi- 
dence that Wackerle was living, the Judge granted a new trial, 
but with the understanding that the company would only be 
permitted to prove the fact. 

A commission was issued for the taking of testimony, and 
Mrs. Wackerle was notified to appear in Carver, Minn., and 
meet the husband she had so persistently claimed was dead. 
In the meantime Wackerle was sent for, and he immediately 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 629 

came East. He visited his old neighbors and friends in Carver 
and Chaska, Minn., all of whom promptly recognized him. 
Mrs. Wackerle went to Minnesota, but, for reasons best known 
to herself, she would not be present when the depositions were 
taken. She evaded several attempts to get her and Wackerle 
together. 

While Lieut. Weinmann and Wackerle were in pursuit of 
Mrs. Wackerle at St. Paul to bring about a meeting of the 
couple, they accidentally met John Wackerle, William's 
brother. Both at once recognized each other. This added 
another link to the chain of evidence so rapidly forming to 
defeat the unjust claim of the woman that she was a widow 
and entitled to the insurance upon the life of her deceased 
husband. 

The testimony of some twenty-five witnesses was taken, in 
Carver and Chaska, to the effect that they knew Wackerle and 
his wife, and that they knew him to be the identical person 
who previously resided there. Some of the witnesses were 
present at their marriage; others served with him in the army. 

Mrs. Wackerle persistently refused to meet her husband. It 
was, however, important to complete the evidence which the 
company desired to give at the second trial, that Mrs. Wack- 
erle should also be identified as the wife of Wackerle and the 
plaintiff in the litigation. In order to accomplish what was 
desired in this respect, Lieutenant Weinmann, who, as stated 
above, was a resident of Faribault, and with whom Wackerle 
was stopping, arranged with a prominent county official at 
Chaska, that if she visited that place to take her in and tele- 
graph him, in order that he might bring Wackerle and have 
them meet in the presence of parties who knew them both. 
The arrangement was successful, and Wackerle, for the first 
time in many years, met his wife in the presence of a large 
number of their old neighbors, who subsequently gave testi- 
mony that they knew them both, and that they were the iden- 
tical parties who were formerly residents of that town. 

When Wackerle and his wife met, he said to her, " Do you 
now say that I am not your husband, and that I am dead?" 
To which Mrs. Wackerle replied, " The courts of Louisiana 
will decide whether or not your are my husband; I want noth- 



630 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

ing to do with you." Mrs. Wackerle immediately left the 
house and the town, apparently indignant that she had been 
compelled to face her husband. 

At the second trial in Shreveport, the company presented 
depositions of Wackerle, Lieutenant Weinmann, John Wack- 
erle,- and some twenty-five others, prominent residents of 
Chaska County, all showing conclusively that Wackerle was 
living. 

In rebuttal of the evidence presented by the company to 
the effect that Wackerle was living, Mrs. Wackerle caused the 
body of the man killed at Shreveport to be exhumed; and 
although the burial had occurred some four or five years be- 
fore, she testified that she recognized the corpse as that of 
her husband. She was positive in her testimony of the fact 
that it was the body of her deceased husband. Notwithstand- 
ing there was nothing left but the skeleton, she said that she 
recognized it from peculiarities of the teeth, which she remem- 
bered, and they were identical with those of her husband. 

The evidence that Wackerle was living was so conclusive 
that a verdict was given for the company. To this she took 
an appeal. At the October, 1880, term of the Supreme Court 
it was finally disposed of. In closing his opinion, the Judge 
said: "The testimony conclusively establishes that Wackerle, 
the identical person whose Hfe was insured, is still living, and 
unmasks one of the boldest and most scandalous schemes of 
fraud upon the defendant, the court and her counsel, ever con- 
ceived, and carried to the very verge of success. It is there- 
fore ordered, adjudged and decreed, that the judgment appealed 
from be affirmed at appellant's cost." So far as the ^tna was 
concerned, this ended the litigation. 

The suit against the Mutual Life Insurance Company was 
brought by Mrs. Wackerle in St. Louis. The jury was com- 
posed exclusively of Jarmers. A. R. Taylor, of St. Louis, was 
counsel for the plaintiff, and Messrs. Grover & Shepley were 
counsel for the company. 

Mr. Taylor opened the case by outlining to the jury the 
particulars of the claim; a suit was originally brought in the 
State Court, but had been transferred by the defendants to the 
Federal Court. 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 631 

Mrs. Wackerle, being sworn, related the facts, mainly, as 
given, respecting the ^tna case, and swore that she first 
learned of her husband's death through his brother, John 
Wackerle. She met him at Carondelet, and he told her that 
her husband was dead. Subsequently she went to Shreveport 
and had her husband's body exhumed, and identified it by a 
broken tooth, and by his hair, whiskers and clothing. She was 
sure it was the body of her husband. He was killed December 
25th, 1872, and she had his body dug up in March, 1874. 

Upon cross-examination she said that she received a note 
from her lawyer, at Shreveport, that tried the case against the 
yEtna, telling her that a lawyer named Weinmann had a man 
at Faribault, Minn., that was said to be her husband; that she 
went to see about it. She called on the chief of pohce there, 
and he told her to go to Mr. Dunham's, where the man would 
be. She told him she wanted to see the man they said was 
her husband, and that he should bring him to her. He did 
not bring him to her, but brought him in front of the house 
and she saw him. She did not call him in because he was 
a stranger to her. She did not think that the man said to be 
her husband saw her at the time she saw him. At a Mr. 
Greiner's she met the man they said was her husband. There 
were a good many there, but she did not know who they were. 
Lawyer Weinmann was there. The man said, " Walburga, 
don't you know me?" She replied that that matter had to be 
settled in court. She did not tell him he was an impostor. 

At this point John Wackerle confronted the witness, and 
she was asked if she recognized him. She replied she had 
never seen him before. She stated that he was a stranger to 
her, and she knew nothing about him; that John Wackerle, 
the brother of her husband, was a taller man, and looked alto- 
gether different. William Wackerle was then called in front 
of the witness, and she was asked if she recognized him. Her 
reply was, " This man is a stranger to me, like the one before. 
I saw him once in Minnesota, biii; he has changed some from 
what he was before. This man is not my husband. I never 
lived with him as his wife. T never saw him except in j\Iinne- 
sota, once, and here, now." 

Here the plaintiff rested her case. 



632 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

Mr. Shepley, counsel for the defense, in his opening address 
to the jury, said that he expected to prove that the chief of 
poHce at Faribault, took William Wackerle by the house where 
Mrs. Wackerle was, and that she went to the chief of police 
and asked him the quickest way she could get out of town 
without that man seeing her; that two interviews were arranged, 
at Carver and Chaska, where the parties had lived, and were 
known to many persons; that it was only by a trick that Mrs. 
Wackerle was got to the house of one Greiner, where Mr. 
Wackerle was, and where many persons who knew them both 
were; that at that time Mrs. Wackerle made no pretense of 
calling Mr. Wackerle an impostor; that all she could be got 
to say was that the matter must be settled in the court. He 
also stated how Weinmann became aware of the litigation with 
the yEtna Life Insurance Company; how he wrote the com- 
pany, informing them of the existence of Mr. Wackerle; he 
also stated that he should produce witnesses before the court 
who knew Mr. Wackerle ever since 1850 — before he was mar- 
ried — and down to the present time, and would present over- 
whelming proof that the person claiming to be William Wack- 
erle was the identical person who was insured, and the husband 
of the plaintiff, but that he was now divorced from her. 

Jacob Sommer, sworn, stated that he lived in Illinois; had 
previously lived on Tom Allen's place, near St. Louis, for 
eighteen years; he was a gardener; he had known William 
Wackerle since he was a little boy; knew him in the old 
country; saw him in St. Louis in 1871 ; was told by Wackerle 
that he was going South; saw Mrs. Wackerle once; she came 
to see him, and asked him if he knew where her husband had 
gone; in the spring of 1872 Wackerle came back, and said 
he was going to California ; he knew that the party in the court- 
room who claimed to be William Wackerle was the identical 
person, and that John Wackerle was also the brother of Wil- 
liam; he was acquainted with him; he had known John Wack- 
erle for eighteen years ; they were neighbors in the old country ; 
he had played with William when they were boys; Mrs. Wack- 
erle came to him and asked him if he knew where her husband 
had gone; he told her he did not know, but that he said he 
was going South. Upon cross-examination he stated that 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 633 

Wackerle left Germany about ten years before he did, and was 
about ten years older than he was; when he met Wackerle in 
this country he knew him right away, and Wackerle knew him. 

John Bruch was sworn, and stated that he lived in St. Louis; 
that he had known William Wackerle about thirty years; that 
in 1 85 1 Wackerle boarded with him; in 1854 Wackerle went to 
Minnesota; he recognized William Wackerle in the court-room 
as the identical person — he was certain of it; in October, 1871, 
Wackerle boarded with him a couple of weeks; that was at the 
time he returned from the South; Wackerle returned to St. 
Louis in April, 1872, and boarded with him again a week or 
ten days; he then left to go to California; he saw him off; he 
had not seen him since till about a week ago; he knew John 
Wackerle, his brother; John has boarded with him more or 
less since 1851; in 1873 Mrs. Wackerle came to his house 
and asked if he could tell her anything about her husband, 
William Wackerle; he told her he did not know where he was, 
but that John Wackerle was there and was eating his dinner; 
at the interview between John and Mrs. Wackerle, the former 
got excited and told her to go ofif, that he wanted nothing to 
do with her; that he (Bruch) had not seen her since until 
recently; that he knew Christ. Wackerle, a brother of William 
and John. 

J. A. Sargent was sworn, and stated that he lived in Carver, 
Minn., and had resided there since 1855; that in 1859 he was 
recorder of deeds; he had subsequently been a judge of pro- 
bate for fourteen years; he knew William Wackerle at Carver; 
in 1862 he enlisted in the war, and was gone till 1864, when 
he returned; at about that time he (Wackerle) sold his farm 
and moved away; William Wackerle, then before him, was the 
identical person; while Wackerle was a resident of Carver he 
bought wood of him and did most of his business for him; 
Wackerle's first wife died about the year 1855, and he married 
again, and the plaintiff in this case is the woman who lived 
with Wackerle at Carver and Chaska as his wife; he knew John 
Wackerle, but not as well as he did William ; it was his impres- 
sion that the identical John Wackerle n-as before him; that 
Mrs. Wackerle was in Chaska in 1878; William Wackerle was 
also there, but he did not see them together. 



634 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

Mrs. Margaret Brucli, wife of the former witness, John 
Bruch, being sworn, gave testimony similar to that of her hus- 
band. She identified WilHam Wackerle and his wife. 

At this point a number of depositions were read from persons 
who had known Wilham Wackerle in Chaska, Faribault, and 
Carver, Minn., fully identifying the man produced with the 
William Wackerle they knew. 

A large number of depositions were presented by the defense 
and read in court, all having reference to the identification of 
William Wackerle. 

J. S. Randall, of Shreveport, an undertaker, was sworn, and 
stated that on the 25th of December, 1872, he was called upon 
to bury a man who was killed on a railroad near Shreveport; 
that he buried the corpse the next day in the potter's field, in 
a cheap cofifin with a glass plate; he was present at the dis- 
interment of the body in September, 1877; he found but little 
left except the skeleton; there was a little piece of wood that 
resembled the cofBn, and no glass at all was found. 

William Fletcher, of Shreveport, was sworn, and stated that 
he took up the body of a man said to have been killed on the 
railroad about five years before; there were no exterior signs 
of a grave there; he dug on the spot indicated by the sexton; 
Mrs. Wackerle was present and identified the remains by a 
broken tooth ; the grave was afterwards opened, and the remains 
appeared in the same condition as before; the leg bones wxre 
not broken. 

Dr. James G. Ford, of Shreveport, stated under oath that he 
was present at the opening of the grave in 1877; that he exam- 
ined the bones carefully, and there was no sign of a broken leg; 
the bones were well preserved, and could not have been in the 
condition they were if a leg had been broken. 

R. L. Simmons, of Shreveport, foreman of the coroner's jury 
that sat on the man killed on the 25th of December, 1872, on 
the railroad, said it was satisfactorily shown that the man 
belonged to a gang of railroad men, but his name could not 
at that time be ascertained; there were no papers or name 
found on the body, or anything by which he could be identified. 
The first time he ever heard the name of Wackerle was when 
he met Mrs. Wackerle at the time she was getting up testi- 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 635 

mony of her husband's death. The leg of the man the inquest 
was held on was severed just above the knee. 

W. H. Noland, of Shreveport, testified that he was at the 
inquest before mentioned; that no papers were found on the 
body; he never heard the name of Wackerle till he heard it 
from Mrs. Wackerle. 

John Hein testified that he had lived in Napa County, Cal, 
since i860; previous to that he lived in Carver, Minn.; he knew 
William Wackerle then; on the 24th of June, 1878, he saw 
the same William Wackerle at San Francisco and talked over 
with him old family matters; he stated that he was as positive 
as he could be of anything that it was the same man. 

J. Nicholas Hein, a brother of the last witness, testified to 
the same state of facts. 

Philip Fabel testified that he had lived in St. Paul since 1856; 
he was acquainted with William Wackerle when he lived at 
Carver, Minn.; he met him again in 1878; Mr. Wackerle came 
up to him and said, "Don't you know me, Philip?" I said, 
" No, I don't." He said, " Don't you remember selling me a 
dog at Carver for a bushel of corn? " I answered, " Yes, I do; 
your name is WiUiam Wackerle." 

Paul Faber, of St. Paul, testified that he knew William Wack- 
erle before and after the war; he, Wackerle, was at his house 
about two years ago, and took his meals there occasionally 
for about a week; his wife (Mrs. Wackerle) came to him (Faber) 
to help her get testimony of her husband's death; she said she 
would give him $500 if he would help her. About a week 
later Wackerle came in, and I exclaimed, " Hello, Wackerle, I 
thought you were dead ! " I am positive it was the same Wil- 
liam Wackerle I had known at Carver. His wife came to my 
house later, and I told her to go out. I said to her, " I know 
your husband, and I wonder how you dare to deny him." 

Mrs. Paul Faber, wife of the preceding witness, testified to 
the same state of facts. 

John Sandren, of Carver, Minn., testified that he was in the 
army with William Wackerle, and in the same company with 
him; saw him in 1878 and talked with him about the campaign 
they had passed together; Wackerle was familiar with all things 
they knew tog'ether, and talked and answered correctly. He 
recognized him fully as William Wackerle. 



636 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

Depositions were read of Anthony Waldman, John Funk, 
Michael Hall, John Blosdell and wife, Mrs. Genevieve Buche, 
A. G. Anderson, W. A. G. Griffin, Levi H. Griffin and Fred- 
erick Greiner, all of Carver, Minn., Margaretha Ebbinger, of 
Chaska, Senator C. D. GilfilHan, of St. Paul, S. C. Dunham, 
chief of police of Faribault, and Stephen Kulk and wife, of St. 
Paul, fully identifying Wackerle as the husband of the plaintiff. 

Joseph Weinmann, being duly sworn, stated that he resided 
at Faribault; that he lived in Carver for eighteen years, and 
until 1874; that he was acquainted with William Wackerle, who 
was at that time living between Chaska and Carver; he knew 
his wife also, knew them both till 1862; he recruited a company, 
and August 2d of that year William Wackerle enlisted; he 
(Wackerle) served in his company till they came back from 
Rolla, Mo., and on account of sickness was discharged; he 
(Wackerle) sold his farm and moved away from Carver; he did 
not learn anything of his whereabouts until the year 1873, 
when he got a letter from him saying he had taken a claim 
in California and wanted him to attend to it; he answered the 
letter, and the letter being produced in court was identified 
by Mr. Weinmann; it is dated September 19th, 1873; he 
received another letter from Wackerle dated January 22d, 1873; 
that letter he produced in court. It was written in German, 
and Mr. C. E. Soest, deputy U. S. marshal, read it in court as 
an interpreter; it proved to be mostly about the family afifairs 
of the writer; he said he got insured in the ^tna for $3,000, 
and in the Mutual for $4,000; that he did it because his wife 
forced him, and he wanted peace; that if he hadn't left her, his 
life would have been ended long ago; that he heard she had 
been married again, and wanted to learn something about that; 
that when he went away he left all his property with his wife 
except his clothing, including all the money he had got for 
his place and all he had earned. Mr. Weinmann stated further 
that he did not answer this letter ; that he took up a New York 
Weekly Mail one day, and looking over the items saw that 
Mrs. Wackerle had brought suit against an insurance company 
for the insurance upon the life of her husband; he wrote the 
editor that he would like to be put in correspondence with the 
company interested; in about two weeks a representative of 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 637 

the ^tna came to Faribault to learn what he knew about the 
case; he gave him information as to Wackerle's whereabouts; 
the letter was shown to the ^tna representative, and upon 
being compared, the signature of the letter and of the applica- 
tion for insurance were found to be identical; that he and the 
^tna representative visited California and found Mr. Wackerle 
there. 

Upon cross-examination, Mr. Weinmann stated that when he 
first became acquainted with the case Mrs. Wackerle had 
obtained a judgment against the ^tna; that he did not know 
where Christ. Wackerle was; he had not heard from him for 
years; that he knew William Wackerle as well as he knew any 
man except his (Weinmann's) brother; that Wackerle did not 
learn from him about his domestic affairs; that William Wack- 
erle and John Wackerle, his brother, were the parties whom 
they represented themselves to be, and William was the hus- 
band of the plaintifif. 

John Wackerle testified that he was a brother of William, 
who was then present; he knew Walburga Wackerle, the plain- 
tiff; he saw her in St. Louis nine or ten years ago; it was at 
John Bruch's saloon in Carondelet; she wanted to know where 
his brother William was; he said he did not know where he 
was; he went South somewhere, perhaps to Texas; the next 
spring William went to California he thought, did not remem- 
ber exactly; he next saw William in St. Paul, in 1878; he did 
not see him again until he came here. On cross-examination 
he stated that he did not tell Mrs. Wackerle that her husband 
was dead; that he never heard his brother was in Marshall, 
Texas, working on a farm; that he never received a letter from 
his brother Christ.; that he did not know where Christ, was; 
that he (John) was never in Shreveport. 

William Wackerle, being duly sworn, stated that he resided 
in California, that he went there in the year 1869 from the 
country back of Detroit; that he worked on I street, in Sacra- 
mento, making wine; that he was married in ^linnesota to 
Walburga Wackerle, and he guessed she knew him then: he 
lived there till 1865; his wife lived with him then: that when he 
sold his farm she took every cent of money he got for it and 
all he had earned; that he had had so much trouble with this 



638 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

woman he should ahvays remember her; he sold his farm to 
George Gruber and partner; that he moved to Milwaukee; 
while there he took out a policy in the iEtna, first for $2,000, 
and it was afterwards made $3,000; his wife left Milwaukee 
before he did and took everything to Detroit; he was also 
insured in a New York company for $4,000; both were for his 
wife's benefit; he did not stay long in Detroit; his wife quar- 
relled with him; he returned to Milwaukee; his wife wrote him 
requesting him to live with her again, and he did; while in 
Detroit he earned money to go to California; while at Sacra- 
mento he, through an advertisement, learned that a woman 
wanted to meet him; he met his wife at Shimminger's; they 
took a house there and lived together awhile ; she desired to go 
East, and together they went back to Quincy, Illinois; while 
in Sacramento a child died and was buried there; his wife 
desired to take the child with them East, and she had some 
trouble with the railroad company about taking it; they arrived 
in Quincy in 1870; while there he chopped wood for a man by 
the name of Ben FrankHn; they lived together in Quincy until 
the year 1871; in the fall of that year he went to New Orleans; 
in the spring of 1872 he came back and boarded about two 
weeks with John Bruch, of St. Louis, and from there went to 
California by the overland route; at Sacramento he met his 
brother Christ.; he next went to Eureka, Cal., in 1873, and 
from there to Hydesville, and resided there till 1878, when, at 
the request of the ^tna Company, he returned to Minnesota; 
during the time from 1873 to 1878 he wrote letters to Joseph 
Weinmann, of Faribault. His letters were presented and iden- 
tified. During the war Mr. Weinmann was First Lieutenant 
of his company; in 1880 he went to Los Angeles, California, 
to live, and now resides there ; after leaving his wife at Quincy, 
he next saw her in the fall of 1878, at Chaska, Minn., and she 
pretended not to recognize him; it was at Greiner's house; he 
asked her if she did not know him, and she would not answer; 
she said she would have nothmg to do with him, and the 
courts must decide. After leaving her at Quincy, Illinois, he 
never wrote to her; he left her because he could not live with 
her in peace: he wanted some peace in his old age. 

Upon cross-examination he said that when he met his wife 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 639 

at Mr. Greiner's, she said we were all swindlers. Mr. Greiner 
said, " Who is a greater swindler than you? You want to 
collect the insurance money, and your husband is not dead." 
That the child's body was carried by the express company, the 
railroad company refusing to take it; he would have preferred 
to have the child buried in California; that his vv^ife made all 
the arrangements as to preserving and shipping the corpse; 
that the coffin used was a plain one, such as poor people gener- 
ally get; they arrived in Quincy before the coffin did; the outer 
box was not opened to his knowledge; it was buried, so far as 
he knew, in the same condition that it arrived ; there were eight 
children born at his last marriage; they all died young except 
the girl at Sacramento, who was seven or eight years old when 
she died; the first child was born on the farm in Minnesota; 
its name was George William ; it was buried on a lot he bought 
of Greiner; the second child was born ; t New Orleans, and 
died there; he did not remember its name; she called it Wil- 
liam; he did not remember whether the third child was a boy 
or girl, how long it lived, nor when it died.; he did not remem- 
ber where the fourth child was born or whether it was a boy 
or girl. He made the same statements respecting the fifth, 
sixth and seventh child, and he did not remember their names. 
The last child was a boy; it was living" when he left Quincy; she 
called it George; he stated that his wife had a book in which 
all the names of the children were written down; some of the 
names were written by himself; he further stated that he was 
never in Indianapolis with his wife; that he went from New 
Orleans to Cincinnati with her, and that he worked in the 
latter place one season; he had never been there since. 

The witness was shown a certificate of his examination for 
an insurance policy dated at Cincinnati in 1868, on a policy 
he had previously stated he took out in Milwaukee in the year 
1867. He did not remember having been in Cincinnati at 
that time; he could giv-e no reason for being re-examined on 
a policy taken out in 1867; he stated that he lived in Detroit 
in 1869; he might have visited Cincinnati, but he did not 
remember it; he had an indistinct recollection that he did go 
to Cincinnati, but he could not tell for certain; he stated that 
his memory was not good; that they had one child born a 



&iO . PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

couple of months after they arrived at Quincy — it was a boy. 
He was asked if his wife was not suffering with pains of 
labor when they got off the cars, and if his wife was not taken 
to the house of a policeman, and if a child was not born there. 
He stated that the child was born in the house he rented; that 
the dead child was buried before the child referred to was born; 
that he was never shown the depositions which were presented 
at the trial; that he was never asked to change his name to 
Chris. Wackerle; that Chris, was a larger and much stouter 
man; that he (Chris.) was four years younger; that he had 
not seen him since 1873; that he was William Wackerle and 
the husband of the plaintiff; that the reason why he did not 
apply for a pension until the year 1878 v/as that he did not 
know that a discharged soldier was entitled to a pension; that 
their children were all young when they died ; that his wife paid 
the premiums for the insurance; the proceeds of the sale of 
the farm and other property she put into United States bonds. 
At the close of the depositions William Wackerle was requested 
to write his name. The signature compared perfectly with 
the undoubted signature of William Wackerle in the original 
application for insurance in the ^tna, with only the natural 
difference which the increased age would make. 

This closed the evidence for the defense. 

Upon the part of the prosecution, Dr. Moses S. Bassett, of 
Quincy, Illinois, being sworn, testified that he was a physician 
and surgeon; had practiced thirty years; knew William Wack- 
erle at Quincy; got acquainted with him when he first came 
there. In the fall of 1870 or 1871 was called one morning by 
a policeman to see a woman in labor. The policeman stated 
that he picked the woman up in the street; he sent his stepson, 
who is a physician, to attend her. A few days later, a man 
came to see him about a baby that was born at the time my 
stepson attended the case; that man was Wm. Wackerle; the 
child had an unusual disease for a child ; I recognize Mrs. Wack- 
erle here as the mother; I afterwards attended Mr. Wackerle 
when he was sick ; this man here is not the William Wackerle I 
knew in Quincy. He is two inches taller than that man, and 
has more prominent cheek bones. Tlie William Wackerle I 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 641 

attended had different hair and eyes from this man. He had 
blue eyes and reddish, auburn hair; it was rather long and 
rolled up at the ends without being curly. He was more 
effeminate looking than this man; this man has some resem- 
blance to him, but I am positive that he is not the man. 

George Tenderge, being sworn, testified that he was a drug- 
gist in Quincy; he knew William Wackerle there and saw him 
frequently; he was satisfied that this was not the man. Wack- 
erle, whom he knew, was not as tall as this man; his face was 
not as long, nor his forehead the same shape; William Wack- 
erle's forehead was very protuberant. 

The deposition of J. Henry Heiner was read; it was to the 
effect that he knew William Wackerle, who resided at Quincy, 
ten or twelve years ago; he was about five feet six inches tall; 
his whiskers were of a bright auburn, and his hair a little 
darker; Wackerle did not shave at all then; said he could 
identify him if Wackerle would tell what was the contents of 
a certain box that came with them. 

The deposition of Alexander Ramsey, ex-Governor of Min- 
nesota, was then read. He knew William Wackerle in Minne- 
sota; had only a moderate acquaintance with him; he was a 
stout man, and about five feet six inches tall, with a red com- 
plexion. The picture shown to him (Ramsey), differed from 
him entirely ; he could trace no resemblance between it and the 
Wackerle he knew. Upon cross-examination, he stated that 
he could not recollect exactly whether his hair was dark or not; 
Wackerle looked like a peasant from Europe. If a man cut 
his hair short, shaved clean, except a mustache, put on a clean 
shirt, and good clothes, it is possible that after fourteen years 
he would not be able to recollect him from his picture. 

Fred. H. Magdeburgh's deposition was read; he said he 
knew Mrs. Walburga Wackerle at Milwaukee; he also knew 
William Wackerle in January, 1867; during that month Wack- 
erle made an application to him as agent of the Mutual Life 
for insurance upon his Hfe, which was granted; the picture of 
William Wackerle, which had been shown him, is not the pic- 
ture of the Wackerle whom he knew; it bore no resemblance 
to him. 

Mrs. Walburga Wackerle, the plaintiff, was recalled in rebut- 



643 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

tal; she stated that she was married in Chaska in 1858; her 
first child was named George William, and was born at Carver ; 
the child died and was buried in New Orleans; her second 
child was born there, it was named George. It died when 
two weeks old, and was buried beside the other child; they 
went from New Orleans to Cincinnati; it was about i860 when 
they went to Cincinnati; they lived there one summer; from 
there they went to the farm in Minnesota; one child, Emma 
Theresa, was born in the latter place ; also another child named 
John; he lived but four months; a girl named Johanna was 
born at Milwaukee, it lived two months; the next child was 
born at Milwaukee, it was named Otto, and lived four weeks; 
from there they went to Detroit; the next child was born in 
Quincy, 111.; this was the last child she had — seven in all. The 
farm was sold in 1865; they lived in Detroit about one year 
in 1868; from there they went to Chicago and to Cincinnati 
again; that was in 1869. The reason William Wackerle was 
re-examined at Cincinnati was that the premium was not paid 
in time, and the company would not accept it unless he was 
re-examined; they went back to Detroit, and from there her 
husband went to California; her daughter was then living; she 
followed him to Sacramento, met him at Skimminger's; her 
daughter lived about eight months; about two months later 
they decided to move to Quincy; a zinc box was made by the 
undertaker to take Emma's body along; her husband assisted 
in changing the body from the coffin to the zinc box ; a wooden 
box was put around it; it was sent to Quincy by express; it 
did not get there until two days after they got there; when 
they arrived at Quincy she was sick ; a policeman came to her 
and took her to a house where nobody lived ; her husband went 
for a woman to help her, but before he came back she gave 
birth to a child; Dr. Bassett came to see her that night; the 
child lived eight months; the child that was born in Quincy 
was born before Emma was buried ; they lived in Quincy until 
1872; that year her husband went to California; she got a letter 
from him stating that he was going off to work. 

Upon cross-examination she stated that her memory was 
pretty good about some things; that she did not say to Mr. 
Weinmann that the man who came to her at Greiner's was not 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 643 

William Waekerle but John; that he looked more Hke Chris, 
than like William ; she always lived happily with her husband ; 
her husband almost always wrote to her when he was away, 
telling her where he was; when he went South he wrote to 
her, but for some time she did not hear from him; when he 
wrote he said he was going farther South; she wrote to John 
Waekerle at St. Louis asking where her husband was; she was 
anxious about him; she knew John Waekerle; the man she saw 
in the court-room did not look like John Waekerle; when her 
husband went to California he wrote to her. 

This closed the testimony in the case. 

Mr. Glover made the argument for the defense; he was fol- 
lowed by Mr. Donoghue for the plaintiff at about the same 
length. After the charge of Judge Treat, the jury retired and 
were out but a short time when they returned, and the foreman 
said: "We, the jury, find for the plaintiff and assess the dam- 
ages at $6,300 on the first count, and $206.99 on the second." 

Mr. Shepley, the defendant's counsel, gave notice of an 
appeal. 

The case subsequently came up on appeal, and a new trial 
was denied. 

Judge Treat, of the United States Circuit Court, rendered 
the following opinion in the matter of a motion for a new trial : 

" Walburga Waekerle 7fs. Mutual Life Insurance Company of New 
York. A full examination has been made of the evidence, which was 
one peculiarly for a jury. It was on both sides full of doubt, incon- 
sistencies, and contradictions. Turn as we may in the analysis of 
the evidence, strange and irreconcilable aspects are presented. 

The first point to be established by plaintifif was the death of her 
husband. That rested on the testimony of several witnesses con- 
cerning the railroad accident and the identity of the person killed 
thereby. The evidence of the plaintiff and others as to the skeleton 
exhumed some four or more years after such killing, established to 
the satisfaction of the Court that the exhumed skeleton was not 
that of the man killed, supposed to be William Waekerle, on 
December 25, 1872. The Court directed the attention of the jury 
especially to that fact. Not that it was conclusive, but because it 
tended to show what weight should be given to the testimony. It 
may be that the exhumed skeleton was not that of William Waek- 
erle, and hence the accuracy of plaintiff's testimony becomes ques- 
tionable. Yet there was other evidence as to the death of the party 



644 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

killed, independent of the exhumation in 1877. It was therefore 
for the jury to decide whether, despite the mistakes as to the identity 
of the skeleton, William Wackerle was killed as alleged. 

The case as presented by the evidence was remarkable in many 
other respects, concerning which it is useless to comment. There 
are several depositions wanting which the Court has been anxious 
to read and analyze, but by some accident they have disappeared. 
Hence the Court has to rely on its memory as to their contents, and 
if a new trial is granted, after a long lapse of time, to supply the 
same. 

So far as the Court was justified in alluding to or commenting 
on the evidence, it pointed in its charges sharply against the plain- 
tiff's claim, so far as the identity depended on the exhumed skeleton. 
Still, the jury reached the conclusion that the plaintiff's husband 
was killed in 1872, as alleged, and consequently that the person pro- 
duced by the defendant, and claiming to be William Wackerle (hus- 
band of the plaintiff), was not what he pretended. The case was 
tried at great length, and the largest scope given to a searching 
inquiry. Its novel aspects induced the Court to admit every item of 
interest which could shed light on the subject. 

After full deliberation on the varied, inconsistent, and contradictory 
evidence, the jury reached a conclusion which was their exclusive 
province, and the Court does not feel justified in interfering there- 
with. The motion for a new trial is overruled." 

While the company and Wm. Wackerle came in for a large 
share of criticism and abuse at the hands of a portion of the 
press, it is but fair to publish a letter written to the San Fran- 
cisco Bulletin, in which paper the letter was published, adding 
another chapter to this peculiar case. 

To the Editor of the Bulletin : . 

In the Weekly Bulletin of October nth, 1882, on the fourth page, 
appeared an article headed, " A Question of Identity," wherein it is 
made to appear that I have lent myself to personate a dead man in 
order to assist the ^tna and the Mutual Life Insurance Company of 
New York to defraud a poor widow to receive an amount of $4,000 
because of the death of her husband. I did not personate that hus- 
band, as it is given out. I am, or rather have been, the husband of 
the indefatigable Mrs. Wackerle, the same who applied to the com- 
panies above named for an insurance on his life for the benefit of 
his wife. Heaven be praised I am not that lady's husband any more, 
having long since been divorced, nor have I ever been that unlucky 
lover and unknown pedestrian who was run over by a railroad train 
in Texas in 1872, and furnished that lady a convenient corpse. The 
companies very properly refused to pay those policies on my hfe, 
because they always knew that I was not dead' yet; and the ^Etna 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 645 

Life Insurance Company was sustained in the refusal by the Supreme 
Court of the State of Louisiana, I having furnished abundant proof 
of my identity. 

Undismayed by this defeat, Mrs. Walburga Wackerle then tackled 
the Mutual Life Insurance Company, and obtained a verdict in her 
favor before an accommodating jury, who were sufficiently softened 
by her tears to award her a handsome amount of money out of the 
pocket of a heartless corporation. This verdict ought to extinguish 
me, and I am truly sorry for the New York Sun, who, under date 
of October i8th, 1882, and the Humboldt Times, who on the 21st of the 
same month favored me with such extended notices, that I am ill- 
mannered enough still to be among the living, the same William 
Wackerle who, in the year 1858, married Miss Walburga Schneider; 
lived with her to the month of June, 1871 ; co-habited with her during 
that time, raising a family of children. I was born and baptized as 
William Wackerle, married as William Wackerle, got divorced as 
William Wackerle, and will always remain so, in spite of my wife's 
studied refusal to recognize me, and the sensational romances gotten 
up by the Sun newspaper, wherein I am made to figure as a double- 
dyed villain of the blackest hue, who aided and abetted the equally 
double-dyed villainous corporation named the Mutual Life Insurance 
Company of the city of New York. 

But the end is not yet, and before a higher tribunal the perse- 
cuted Walburga will be confronted by witnesses who know me from 
my earliest childhood; by witnesses from Eureka, Humboldt County, 
from Sacramento City and other places where we have been living, 
and who will unmistakably establish the fact that they knew us both 
as man and wife. Then she will probably take another tramp to 
Texas and elsewhere to hunt up further testimony, for she is not the 
kind of woman who willingly would give up a large money stake. 

I do not deny that all the sensational stuff published has annoyed 
me. My acquaintance in a great many places of this State and Mich- 
igan and Illinois is large; my reputation has been good wherever I 
lived, and, valuing it more than anything else, I beg you would insert 
these lines at an early day, in order that all my friends and acquaint- 
ances and the general public may know that I denounce all infamous 
reports published against me as unmitigated lies, which it shall be 
my aim to unravel and lay bare even if the reputation of Walburga 
Wackerle as a heroine should suffer thereby. I likewise wish every- 
body, and the above-named journals especially, to know that my 
hiding-place is at a farm about twelve miles from Los Angeles City, 
in a district called the Azusa, which I acquired by dint of hard labor, 
and where I propose to live until I die for good and ever. 

November 6th, 1882. William Wackerle. 



616 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

THE MAYBRICK CASE. 

Few cases have attracted so much attention or attained so 
much notoriety as that of Mrs. Maybrick, both by reason of 
the persistent effort on the part of prominent American women 
to obtain her pardon and release, beHeving that she was unjustly 
accused and convicted of the murder of her husband, and also 
of the disputes in the English courts, by leading members of 
the bar, over the question of the liabilities of life-insurance 
companies in respect to claims based upon deaths caused by 
murder. 

It is with more especial reference to the latter point that the 
case is introduced into this volume. If it be assumed that 
James Maybrick was poisoned, the inherent probabilities as to 
the motive point less strongly to the insurance on his life than 
to the woman's improper intimacy with another man. 

Mrs. Maybrick was the daughter of the late W. G. Chandler, 
a banker of Mobile, Ala., and was educated in Germany and 
France. She met her future husband on an ocean steamer on 
the way to England, in May, 1880. He was a Liverpool cotton 
broker, and the acquaintance then formed ripened into mar- 
riage a year after. The couple first lived in Norfolk, Va., 
where Mr. Maybrick had business interests, but at the end of 
two years they went to Liverpool, their home being at Aig- 
burth, one of the suburbs. They lived happily together, ac- 
cording to all appearances, with the addition of a boy born in 
1882, and a girl in 1886. 

The first quarrel that was known to have occurred followed 
their return from the " Grand National " races. In the course 
of a violent altercation that night, the servants heard Mr. May- 
brick shout, " Such a scandal will be all over town to-morrow." 
This outburst, presumably, had reference to her rash flirtations 
with her friend Mr. Brierly. 

On or about October 3d, 1888, James Maybrick effected an 
insurance upon his life with the Mutual Reserve Fund Life 
Association of New York, in the sum of £2,000, in favor of 
his wife, Florence Elizabeth Maybrick. On May nth, 1889, 
James Maybrick died. A coroner's inquest was held, and the 
jury returned a verdict charging Mrs. Maybrick with causing 
his death. She was thereupon indicted for the murder of her 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 647 

husband by the administration of arsenic, and upon trial before 
Mr. Justice Stephen at the Liverpool Assizes, in August, 1889, 
was found guilty by the jury. On the 15th she was sentenced 
to be hanged, but the sentence was afterward commuted to 
penal servitude for life, the official record relating thereto being 
in the following terms: " Her Majesty having been graciously 
pleased to extend her royal mercy to the said offender on con- 
dition that she be kept in penal servitude for the remainder of 
her natural life, and such condition of mercy having been 
signified to this court by thfe Right Hon. Henry Matthews, one 
of Her Majesty's principal Secretaries of State, this court hath 
allowed to the said offender the benefit of a conditional pardon. 
And it is therefore ordered that the said Florence Elizabeth 
Maybrick be kept in penal servitude for the remainder of her 
natural life." 

The cause of Mr. Maybrick's death was gastro-enteritis (in- 
flammation of the stomach and intestines), which the doctors 
declared had been induced by some irritant poison. After the 
arrest of Mrs. Maybrick, the house was searched, and eighty- 
five grains of arsenic were found. The post-mortem examina- 
tion revealed no arsenic in the stomach, but a fraction of a 
grain was found in the liver. The trial, which lasted six days, 
was largely a battle of experts, Drs. Carter, Humphreys, and 
Stevenson stoutly maintaining that death was due to arsenical 
poisoning, and Drs. Tidy, MacNamara, Barron, and Prof. 
Paul contesting that view. It was proved on the trial that 
Maybrick had purchased a hundred and fifty grains of arsenic 
three months before his death, and it was also shown that he 
was greatly addicted to dosing himself with drugs, and that 
arsenic in minute quantities was one of his favorite remedies. 

The charge of Justice Stephen to the jury was so unjudicial, 
so one-sided, and so condemnatory of the prisoner that, though 
the jury brought in a verdict of guilty in thirty-eight minutes, 
a revulsion of feeling in her favor followed among the people, 
which was reflected in the press. Sir Charles Russell protested 
against it to the Home Secretary in forcible terms, and even 
the counsel for the Crown, Mr. Addison, said that the verdict 
was not warranted by the evidence. Soon aftenvard. Stephen 
was compelled by insanity to retire from the bench, and his 
death followed. 



648 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

By the will of James Maybrick, dated April 25th, 1889, 
Thomas Maybrick and Michael Maybrick were appointed his 
executors. On or about August ist, 1889, ^^s. Maybrick as- 
signed the life-insurance policy and all her interest thereunder 
to Richard Stewart Cleaver. The assignment was by deed, and 
notice thereof was duly given to the Mutual Reserve Fund. 
On August 30, 1889, Cleaver was appointed administrator of 
the property and effects of Florence Elizabeth Maybrick. Sub- 
sequently when a claim was made for the amount of the poHcy, 
the Association refused to pay. The managers had advanced 
£200, in view of the impoverished condition of Mrs. Maybrick, 
and in response to her urgent petition, to meet the expenses of 
her defense at the Liverpool Assizes, but the payment was upon 
the express condition that it should be without prejudice to 
any question that might arise in regard to the policy, or to 
the liability of the defendant company thereunder. Suit was 
brought by the plaintiff Cleaver, as assignee and administrator, 
or in the alternative, the plaintiffs, Thomas and Michael May- 
brick, as executors, for recovery of i 1,800, the balance of the 
amount of the policy. 

The issues of law arising in the action were argued in the 
Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice, July 
13th, 1891, and concluded July 20th. The questions of law, 
for the opinion of the Court, were stated as follows: 

1. Whether, if it be proved that the said James Maybrick died from 
poison intentionally administered to him by the said Florence Eliza- 
beth Maybrick, that would afford a defense to this action (a) as against 
the plaintiff, Richard Stewart Cleaver, as assignee of the policy from 
Florence Elizabeth Maybrick, assuming the assignment to be proved, 
(3) as against the plaintiff Cleaver as administrator, under the statute 
33 and 34 Vic, cap. 23, sec. 9, (c) as against the plaintiffs, Thomas and 
Michael Maybrick, as executors of James Maybrick, deceased. 

2. Whether, if the conviction of the said Florence Elizabeth May- 
brick, alleged in the statement of defense, be proved in this action, 
such conviction will be (a) conclusive of her guilt, and an answer to 
this action, as against any or either and which of the plaintiffs, (d) 
admissible in evidence in this action. 

3. Whether either the commutation of the sentence stated in the 
plaintiffs' reply on the grounds there set forth, or the conditional 
pardon on the grounds stated in the defendants' rejoinder, will, if 
proved, afford an answer to the alleged conviction. 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 649 

The Court records show that as a curiosity of legal pleading, 
the ingenious effort of Sir Charles Russell, the eminent counsel 
for the plaintiffs, and now Lord Chief Justice of England, took 
high rank. He admitted that Florence Maybrick herself had 
no right to benefit by her crime — a claim for her right to 
recover would be simply monstrous — but he contended that 
even if it were admitted that James Maybrick died from poison 
intentionally administered by his wife, and that she had no 
remedy, the question at issue was whether the plaintiffs, the 
assignee. Cleaver, or the executors, Thomas and Michael May- 
brick, who, under the Married Women's Property Act, of 
1882, were trustees of Mrs. Maybrick, could recover. But the 
Felonies Act and the principles of public policy were too strong 
even for the argumentative force of Sir Charles Russell. Noth- 
ing can be clearer than that it would be against public morals 
and the established policy of law for a murderer to profit by 
his own crime. If, therefore, there was a fatal objection to a 
suit on the part of the woman herself to recover the amount 
of insurance on her husband's life, the objection applied with 
equal force to a suit on the part of her legal representatives. 
They are in no better position, in point of fact, than the woman 
'herself. 

The Queen's Bench Division (Mr. Justice Denman and Mr. 
Justice Wills) held that, the action being for the benefit of 
Mrs. Maybrick, it was against public policy that such an action 
should be allowed. The plaintiffs appealed. 

On the 8th of December, 1891, the case came up on appeal, 
from the decision of the Queen's Bench, before the Court of 
Appeal (the Master of the Rolls and Lords Justices Fry and 
Lopes). This court, in pronouncing judgment, drew a sharp 
line of distinction between the two plaintiff contestants, the 
administrator and the executors. The Master of the Rolls 
gave a lengthy opinion, concluding as follows: 

" Section XL of the Married Women's Property Act, 1882. creates 
a trust in favor of the wife. The section provides that so long as 
any object of the trust remains unperformed, the money is not to 
form part of the insured's estate. Therefore it results from that, 
that if the object of the trust is performed, the money forms part of 
the insured's estate. No trustee was appointed, therefore under that 
section the executors were the trustees of the policy " for the pur- 



650 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

poses aforesaid " — that is, for the wife so long as any object of the 
trust remains unperformed, and when the trust is performed, the 
money is to form part of the estate. If the wife were to die during 
the Hfetime of her husband, no one could contend that the insurance 
company could refuse to receive any more premiums and refuse to go 
on with the contract. I take it that, upon a fair reading of section ii, 
if the object of the trust has become impossible, it is right to say 
that the object of the trust is so far performed. That being so, and 
the section being subject to the rule of public policy, Mrs. Maybrick 
has rendered the trust incapable of being performed. She must be 
treated as struck out of the trust. The trust must be treated as per- 
formed. The rule of public policy must not be carried further than 
is necessary. That rule is not necessary as between the executors 
and the defendants. When the money is in the hands of the execu- 
tors, they hold it for the wife. But the trust is gone. They are then 
trustees of the estate. The creditors (if any) of the husband will 
get paid out of it, and then it will go to his children. The children 
do not claim through the wife, but through the father, and there is 
nothing in public policy to prevent this. If the rule of public policy 
applied to such a case, it would create a grievous injustice. Any one 
claiming through the wife is shut out; therefore her assignee and any 
creditors of hers are shut out. But the rule does not apply as 
between executors of the husband and the defendants. There is, 
therefore, no defense to this action as against the claim of the exec- 
utors, and judgment must be entered for them. Plaintiff, who claims 
through the wife, must fail." 

The Lords Justices concurred in this view, Lord Justice Fry 
closing his opinion in the following terms: 

" If the executors are not trustees for Florence Maybrick, for whom 
are they trustees? This question seems to admit of an easy answer. 
Whenever there is property produced by the payments of A which is 
held in trust for B, and that trust fails or is satisfied, a resulting trust 
arises for A or his estate. This resulting trust is recognized by the 
section of the Act in question, because it takes the property out of 
the estate of the insured so long as any object of the trust remains 
unperformed; language which implies, if it does not assert, that when 
no object of the trust remains to be performed the policy moneys 
form part of the estate of the insured. If it be suggested that this 
view only removes the difficulty a step further oflp, and that the 
possible right of the wife under her husband's will or intestacy forms 
an objection to the action by the executors, the reply is obvious — 
that the principle of public policy must be applied as often as any 
claim is made by the murderess, and will always form an effectual 
bar to any benefit which she may seek to acquire as the result of her 
crime. It follows from the view which I have expressed that I think 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 651 

it needless to inquire into what the particular trusts on which the 
administrator of the convict's property appointed under the statute 
of 1870 may be. He took only the property which Florence May- 
brick had in the moneys in question; and as she took nothing, in my 
judgment, by reason of her crime, he takes nothing likewise. It may 
be argued that having regard to the fact that Mrs. Maybrick is the 
prime object of the insurance, and that she is named on the face of the 
policy as payee, the contract of insurance must be taken to imply 
an exception of the case of the death of the insured when caused by 
the crime of the person so named; and it is suggested that Fauntle- 
roy's case in the House of Lords supports this contention. This 
argument does not appear to me to be tenable. The policy is effected 
under, and therefore affected by, a statutory enactment, the effect of 
which in the present case is to vest the policy in the executors of the 
insured as trustees in the event of Mrs. Maybrick's being entitled to 
claim in trust for her, and in every other event in trust for the estate 
of James Maybrick just in the same way as if before the statute a 
policy had been taken out by James Maybrick, and he had by a 
separate instrument declared the like trusts of it. Now, it is to my 
mind illogical to make the crime of one cestui que trust a bar to the 
claim of another, or of the trustees for that other cestui que trust ; 
and if the supposed defense were to prevail we should so hold. If 
Mrs. Maybrick had inflicted a mortal, but not immediately fatal 
wound on her husband, had then committed suicide, leaving him 
surviving, and his executors had claimed on his death, it appears to 
me that the crime which caused his death would have furnished no 
defense. In a word, I think that the rule of public policy should be 
applied so as to exclude from benefit the criminal and all claiming 
under her, but not so as to exclude alternative or independent rights. 
In Fauntleroy's case the plaintiffs were the assigns of the criminal, 
and were claiming through him. In the present case the plaintiffs 
are the assigns in law of the innocent husband, and are claiming 
through him. The authority, therefore, of that case goes to show 
that neither Florence Maybrick nor the administrator of her estate, 
who claims through her, can take any benefit. But that appears to 
me to throw no impediment in the way of a suit by those who claim 
with clean hands themselves and as assigns of the innocent insured. 
In a word, it appears to me that the crime of one person may prevent 
that person from the assertion of what would otherwise be a right, 
and may accelerate or beneficially affect the rights of third persons, 
but can never prejudice or injuriously affect those rights. In my 
opinion, therefore, public policy prevents Florence Maybrick from 
asserting any title as cestui que trust of this fund, and thereby brings 
into operation the resulting trust in favor of the estate of the insured, 
and so enables the executors to maintain an action as plaintiffs with- 
out any taint derived from the crime committed by Florence May- 
brick." 



652 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

The Mutual Reserve Fund Association was strongly advised 
to appeal from this adverse decision to the House of Lords, 
but meanwhile a new complication arose, and the management 
resolved to make no further contest. Informal notice was 
given that the Crown would claim the proceeds of the policy, 
technical difficulty having been discovered in the reasonings 
from which the foregoing quotations have been taken. After 
the decision of the Court of Appeal as to the liability to the 
executors of the estate of James Maybrick, the Association 
was ready to comply with the ruling, but on finding that Mr. 
Cleaver would not waive his claim, and that the Crown was 
not likely to waive its rights, the full amount of the claim on 
the policy was paid into court for final adjudication. 

Whether Mrs. Maybrick poisoned her husband with criminal 
intent is a question which can only be answered by the inmate 
of Woking prison herself. 

THE AUSTIN DISAPPEARANCE. 

Mr. John C. Austin, or " Jack " Austin, as he was familiarly 
known to many people in New York and Brooklyn, was a 
member of the firm of ship brokers, Lord & Austin, w'hose 
office was at No. i8 Broadway. He was well known as an 
athlete and a devotee of field sports, and was one of the original 
incorporators of the WilHamsburgh Athletic Club. Up to the 
time of his disappearance he was considered a man of com- 
fortable means, but not wealthy. His home was at No. 1114 
Dean Street, Brooklyn, where his family consisted of three 
young children, his wife having died in February, 1891. He 
bore an excellent reputation, and before going into business on 
his own account had been in the employ of Mallory & Co. 
His firm was largely engaged in the business of charters to 
Hayti and other West Indian Islands, and was supposed to 
be prosperous. 

Austin left his home shortly after noon on July 4th, 1893, 
saying that he thought of going to the races, but he might 
change his mind and decide to take a bath at Manhattan Beach. 
He kissed his three children when he went out, and when they 
cried at not being allowed to accompany him he comforted 
them with the promise that he would be back to dinner, and 
would take them to see the fireworks in the evening. 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 653 

From that moment there is no record that any one ever 
saw John C. Austin alive again, although after the news of 
the drowning a barber in Nostrand Avenue, near Fulton Street, 
who had a very slight acquaintance with Austin, said that he 
thought he had come to his shop to be shaved shortly after 
noon. 

That afternoon, as nearly as can be calculated, in the vicinity 
of four o'clock, a man hired room No. 391 in the bathing 
pavilion at Manhattan Beach. He placed his valuables in one 
of the envelopes provided for the purpose, and wrote across it 
in lead pencil, "John C. Austin, 11 14 Dean Street, Brooklyn." 

That bit of writing afterward constituted one of the strongest 
points of evidence for the plaintiffs in a suit in court in the 
following January. 

The envelope was placed in the safe, and a check, num- 
bered 2^2, was handed to the man. It was nearly nine o'clock 
that night and the last bathers had long departed, when the 
clerk in charge of the office, in going through the contents 
of the safe, found the envelope bearing Austin's name and 
address. 

The bathroom was immediately searched, and in it were 
found a blue serge coat and vest, and gray trousers, somewhat 
the worse for wear; a blue striped outing shirt, white under- 
clothing, and a derby hat of a rather peculiar shape. In the 
pockets were a card-case, containing cards bearing Austin's 
name and address, a penknife, a bunch of keys and some lead 
pencils. 

Ernst L. Schumann, superintendent of the bathing pavilion, 
opened the envelope left in the office, in the presence of Cap- 
tain Hotch-kiss, of the Manhattan Beach poHce, John J. Roth- 
well, the clerk, and Fireman Peter R. Mullens. It was found 
to contain a lady's gold watch and chain, studded with pearls; 
a seal ring, bearing the initial " S," a pocketbook, containing 
$3, and a coin purse with $1.05 in small change. 

The finding of the clothing and valuables was accepted as 
certain evidence that the owner had been drowned while bath- 
ing, and a despatch was at once sent to Austin's home in 
Brooklyn. His brother, Joseph E. Austin, and his brother- 
in-law, Thomas C. Carruthers, hastened to the beach and fully 



654 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

idientified the effects as those of Austin. A search for the 
body was begun, and for two days following a constant patrol 
was kept on the beach by the police and volunteer searchers. 
Every foot of the beach and the adjacent shores of Sheeps- 
head Bay, Jamaica Bay, Plum Island, and Rockaway were 
searched in vain. 

That the body of a man drowned at Coney Island should not 
be cast ashore somewhere inside of Sandy Hook was some- 
thing unprecedented in the recollection of the oldest beachmen, 
and by degrees faint suspicions began to be entertained. Those 
who still clung firmly to the drowning theory pointed out that 
the body, after coming to the surface, had been driven sea- 
ward by the strong northwesterly winds that had prevailed 
for some days. At this the old-timers shook their heads -in 
doubt. It was about four o'clock, they argued, when the 
bathroom was hired, and the flood tide was setting strongly 
for several hours afterward, which could hardly have failed to 
cast the body ashore long before the ebb set in. It was absurd, 
they pointed out, to suppose that the man could have remained 
swimming until the end of the flood. 

Even if he had done so, the body would have come to the 
surface within a week, and experience showed that the full 
flood would have carried it shoreward. 

Little by little other suspicious features of the case began to 
crop out. There was but one ring found in the envelope^ — 
the seal one, which was of little value — ^while it was known that 
Austin always wore a ring set with a fine brilliant. It was 
naturally asked why he did not place it also in the security of 
the safe. His friends explained it by saying that the diamond 
ring fitted so closely that it could only be removed with 
difficulty, but several persons recalled having seen Austin 
take off the ring to allow the beauty of the diamond to be 
examined. 

Still another point to which significance was attached was 
the finding of the lady's watch, which had belonged to Austin's 
wife and which he had never before been known to wear. 
Inquiry led to the discovery that he had carried it for several 
days, while his own watch, a magnificent chronometer, had 
been under repair in Benedict's in Broadway. Inquiry at 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 655 

Benedict's resulted in the discovery that the watch had been 
returned on July 3d, the very day before Austin's disappear- 
ance. This threw still more doubt on the case, particularly 
when it was learned that Austin had not called for the watch 
himself, but sent a messenger boy with a check for $8, the 
amount of the bill for repairs. 

Why he should have trusted such a valuable instrument to 
a messenger boy, when his office was within a stone's throw 
of the jeweler's, and why he should have continued to wear his 
wife's watch, was considered peculiar. No trace of the watch 
has ever been found. 

Still another circumstance added to the sum of suspicion. 
Austin was a frequent patron of the Manhattan Beach Bathing 
Pavilion, and was well known by sight by most of the em- 
ployes, and yet not one of them could remember having seen 
him on the day in question. 

What made this the more remarkable was the fact that, as 
the air was chilly and a rather disagreeable wind was blowing, 
there were comparatively few attendants at the baths that day — 
in all not more than six hundred, when on warm days the 
crowd might be counted by as many thousands. 

A photograph of the missing man, which was shown to all 
the employes oif the pavilion, was recognized by none of them 
as that of a man whom they had seen that day. 

Then there was the question of the clothing, which while 
it had undoubtedly belonged to Austin, was not such as he 
would have been likely to wear on a holiday. It was well 
worn, and while it might have served for rough outing pur- 
poses, was by no means like Austin's usual attire. 

The small amount of money found was also surprising, and 
Mr. Lord, Austin's partner, called attention to the fact that 
the missing man always carried a considerable sum about him, 
and that he had never known him to be without at least $100. 

A man named Joseph A. Dallon, who was said to be an 
Englishman on a visit to this country, made an affidavit long 
afterward that he had seen a man drowned in front of the 
pavilion on the afternoon of Julv 4th. 

According to Dallon's story, he was watching the bathers 
when his attention was attracted to a swimmer who was about 



656 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

fifty yards outside the life raft, who seemed to be half swim- 
ming, half floating on his back, and slowly approaching the 
raft, as if drifting on the tide. When the swimmer was within 
one hundred feet or so of the raft he suddenly turned over on 
his face and sank. 

Dallon was sufficiently interested to examine the raft next 
day through an opera glass to discern if there was any aperture 
through which the swimmer might have come to the surface, 
but he seems to have been in no hurry to communicate either 
to the police or any one else what he had seen. 

The cloud of suspicion, however, would speedily have blown 
away and Austin would have been accepted as definitely dead, 
had it not turned out that his life was insured in two companies, 
both of Which promptly refused to accept the evidence of his 
death. One of the policies, for $15,000, had been issued by 
the Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association, in 1885, payable 
to Austin's estate. The other was issued by the United States 
Mutual Accident Association, on July ist, three days before 
Austin's disappearance. 

Austin visited the company's office that day and obtained 
the insurance on his personal application. He represented 
himself as a man who traveled a great deal, and said that he 
was in excellent physical liealth. It was recalled afterward 
that he demurred somewhat at paying the membership fee of 
$10, that he went out as if dissatisfied and then returned and 
finally concluded the bargain, after getting a rebate on the 
premium. He asked the Secretary particularly whether the 
policy would go into effect from that very moment, and asked 
that it be mailed to him without delay. The policy was accord- 
ingly mailed to him that afternoon. 

From the time that Joseph E. Austin, the executor of his 
brother's will, made his demand on both companies, detectives 
scoured this country and Canada in search of the man who, 
they were firmly convinced, was in hiding. Although his 
whereabouts could not be definitely determined, it was believed 
that at the approching trial evidence would be submitted to 
show that several persons had seen and conversed with Austin 
at Shrewsbury River and other places after his disappearance. 
There was reason to believe that the missing man found a 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 657 

secure retreat in the fastnesses of the Adirondack wilderness, 
from which, in various disguises, he made occasional trips to 
visit his children, who are being educated in Canada. 

Mr. F. A. Burnham, then counsel, now president of the 
Mutual Reserve Fund, said : " There is no doubt that Austin 
is alive and in hiding, and that his disappearance was simply 
a carefully concocted scheme to defraud this company. It is 
quite possible that Austin never went near Manhattan Beach, 
and that the jewelry and valuables were placed in the bath- 
house by a confederate." 

" Here," said Mr. Burnham, " is his picture as he was more 
than a year after his disappearance." The portrait represents 
a tall-statured man in hunting costume and Winchester in 
hand, standing in front of a rough hunting lodge. It had 
evidently been cut from a group, for one side is a portion of 
a companion's figure, similarly clad and accoutred. 

When asked where he had obtained the picture Mr. Burn- 
ham smiled and said: " I'm not quite prepared to tell how 
we got it or where it was taken. Mind, I don't say it was in 
the Adirondacks, but every one knows what a famous hiding 
place those trackless woods would make for a man who wanted 
to disappear utterly from the world. When he disappeared 
we tried to get from his family a picture, which we would have 
sent broadcast over the country, but they declared that they 
had nothing but an old tin-type." 

Austin's will, dated January 28th, 1885, leaving all his prop- 
erty to his children, was admitted to probate, without oppo- 
sition, on September 21st, 1891. Shortly afterward the three 
children were taken to Canada, where they are living with 
relatives. 

Mr. Ettlinger, manager of the Death Claim Department of 
the United States Mutual Accident Association, said: '' We 
made some investigation, and we were satisfied long ago that 
Austin was alive. I don't think there is any doubt about it. 
As far as this company is concerned, however, it doesn't make 
a great deal of difference whether he is alive or dead. Our 
policy was an accident one, and in view of the circumstances 
of his alleged death, admitting that it took place, it is obvi- 
ously impossible to determine whether it was accidental or 
suicidal. I fail to see how any claim can be made on us." 



.658 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

Joseph E. Austin was firmly convinced that his brother was 
drowned and that his body was swept out to sea. He said 
that his brother had no conceivable motive for disappearing, 
and that his character forbade the presumption that he would 
attempt to defraud any one. While he was not rich, he had 
means sufficient for his wants, and his business was in a pros- 
perous condition. Mr. Austin thought that the picture in the 
possession of the insurance company was taken years ago, 
while his brother was on a hunting trip in the woods. 

The Mutual Reserve Fund Life Association having refused 
to pay a claim to the beneficiaries of a man whose death was 
not proved, and who was, with good reason, believed to be 
alive, suit was brought for recovery. The trial came on in 
the Supreme Court of the city of New York, January 2d, 1894, 
and terminated on the i6th of the same month, with a verdict 
for the plaintiff for the full amount of the policies, $15,000. 
This result was anticipated as soon as it became apparent that 
the Court would be likely to submit the case to a jury for 
determination. The only expectation of winning the case was 
founded upon the opinion that no proof was submitted to the 
jury on behalf of the plaintiff tending to show that Austin was 
dead, and in that opinion, as matter of law, the counsel of the 
Association is as confirmed to-day as ever. After the verdict 
was rendered the Association would not authorize an appeal, 
but directed payment of the full amount of the claim, basing 
action upon the idea that the verdict was a justification for the 
payment of the claim, such payment being without warrant or 
authority independently of such verdict. At the same time 
there is not the slightest doubt on the part of men of trained 
observation that John C. Austin did not die by drowning at 
IVIanhattan Beach on the 4th of July, 1891, the date of his 
alleged death, and it will not be surprising if detective skill 
will yet be able to produce him alive and well, in view of 
evidence in possession of the law department of the Asso- 
ciation. 

A QUESTION OF IDENTITY. 

The embarrassment which is sometimes occasioned by dis- 
puted identification may be illustrated by a resume of a curious 
and puzzling case in the Western States. A policy written by 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 659 

the Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company on the 
Hfe of Marcus L. Johnson, in the sum of $2,000 for the benefit 
of his wife, Rhoda Johnson, became a claim by reason of the 
death of the insured, which occurred in May, 1869. The 
amount was duly paid by the company to one George E. 
Johnson, of Leavenworth, Kansas, a brother of the deceased, 
who was empowered by the beneficiary to receive the money, 
surrender the policy, and grant the company a legal discharge. 
The widow, Mrs. Rhoda Johnson, resided in Cincinnati, Ohio. 
Mr. George E. Johnson, having advanced a sum of money 
to the widow prior to obtaining the amount due from the com- 
pany, on receiving the money, made up a package enclosing 
the balance due her, amounting to $748.91, and shipped the 
same by the United States Express Company, from the office 
in Leavenworth, addressed to Mrs. Rhoda Johnson, Cincinnati. 
Accompanying the package was a note addressed to the Cin- 
cinnati agent of the express company, requesting him to give 
personal attention to the matter and see that Mrs. Rhoda John- 
son received the money and receipted for it with her own hand. 
As Mrs. Johnson was unknown to the Cincinnati agent, he 
addressed her a line through the post-office, requesting her to 
call at the express office and receive her insurance money. In 
response to this notice she called and claimed the money; 
bringing with her, for the purpose of identification, letters 
written to her by George E. Johnson, her brother-in-law; and 
also a letter from the express company's agent in Leaven- 
worth. The intelligent, straightforward, business-like manner 
of Mrs. Johnson seemed sufficiently conclusive of her honesty, 
and the express agent did not doubt that she was the person 
for whom the money was intended. But, as personal identifi- 
cation had been enjoined upon him, he required her to produce 
some one known to himself, who could vouch for her. This 
she was able to do, and she soon returned with the local agent 
of the insurance company, who had previously paid to her the 
sum of $200, which had been sent to his care for her by George 
E. Johncon, of Leavenworth. The sum thus sent was bv draft 
upon the First National Bank of Cincinnati, payable to the 
order of Mrs. Rhoda Johnson; and the insurance agent having 
identified Mrs. Johnson at that time, she received the money 



660 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

from the bank. This was deemed sufficient. The package 
of money was accordingly delivered to Mrs. Johnson, for which 
she gave her receipt, and then went her way. 

She had not been gone long when Major C. H. Blackburn, 
prosecuting attorney for Hamilton County, and a lawyer of 
eminence and ability, called at the office of the express com- 
pany, where he made inquiry for a package of money pur- 
porting to contain $748.91, and addressed to Mrs. Rhoda 
Johnson. He was told that the package had been received 
and delivered to Mrs. Johnson. Major Blackburn manifested 
surprise at this, as Mrs. Rhoda Johnson was his cHent, who, 
several weeks ago, had placed in his hands for collection from 
George E. Johnson, of Leavenworth, Kansas, a claim for the 
balance due under an insurance policy, and he had been in 
correspondence with Mr. Johnson, and also with the home 
office of the insurance company in Milwaukee. A few days 
previously, he had received by mail a duplicate of the receipt 
given by the express company for the package addressed to 
Mrs. Rhoda Johnson, and said to contain $748.91. This led 
him to inquire at the express office, as stated. 

Major Blackburn again visited the express office, bringing 
with him his client, to learn, as he stated, whether she was the 
woman to whom the package had been delivered; as he feared 
that she was practicing some deception upon him in saying 
she had not received it. He was at once told that she was not 
the person. Major Blackburn was prepared to vouch for his 
client as being Mrs. Rhoda Johnson, the person for whom the 
package was intended. She had been introduced to him by 
respectable people whom he knew, and with whom she was 
well acquainted. His knowledge of her satisfied him that she 
was not capable of concocting any swindle upon the insurance 
or the express company; and he was certain that she had no 
backers, aiders, or abettors in such a scheme. 

This woman, evidently, was a weak-minded person; ignorant, 
and apparently poor, being shabbily dressed. She spoke Eng- 
lish with a German accent, and, in every respect, contrasted 
broadly with the Mrs. Rhoda Johnson who had called for and 
received the money. The story of Mrs. Rhoda No. 2 was, in 
substance, that she was the wife, and now the widow of Marcus 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. e61 

L. Johnson, upon whose Hfe she had held an insurance pohcy 
in the sum of $2,000, written by the Northwestern Mutual, 
and that she had sent the policy to her brother-in-law, Mr. 
George E. Johnson, of Leavenworth, Kansas, for collection. 
He had sent to her, and she had received from him, $200 on 
account, but in default of payment of the balance due her, she 
had placed her claim in the hands of Major Blackburn. She 
exhibited letters which she had in her possession, from Mr. 
George E. Johnson. One of these letters was of sympathy 
and condolence, and mentioned having previously sent $200. 
She also showed a letter from the Leavenworth agent of the 
express company, the substance of which was that he wanted 
to be sure of her receipt of the money. 

Notwithstanding the confidence of Major Blackburn in the 
honesty and justice of his client's cause, the Cincinnati agent 
of the express company felt that Mrs. Rhoda No. i, to whom 
he had paid the money, was the legitimate claimant, and that 
Mrs. Rhoda No. 2 was a fraud. But he at once perceived that 
the circumstances demanded explanation, and he therefore 
called upon the insurance agent who had identified Mrs. Rhoda 
No. I, and requested him to produce the lady. She was readily 
found and brought to the express office, and confronted with 
Mrs. Rhoda No. 2. The two were questioned and cross-ques- 
tioned, and their examination elicited the following informa- 
tion: Mrs. Rhoda Johnson No. i had been married by Bishop 
Simpson to Marcus L. Johnson, seventeen years ago, and had 
had eight children, seven of whom were living. Her husband 
was a bookbinder and blank-book manufacturer, and had been 
established in business in Evansville, Indiana, and Topeka, 
Kansas. From the latter place he came, with his family, to 
Cincinnati, where he remained until his death. When he left 
Topeka he was suffering from a cancerous affection of his 
stomach, of which he died more than a year afterward. Mrs. 
Rhoda No. 2 was married eight years ago, near New York 
city, by a magistrate, and had two children by her husband, 
whose name was Marcus L. Johnson. They had lived together 
for years in New York and Cincinnati. No. i never had been 
absent from her husband beyond a few weeks at a time. No. 
2 said her husband was a bookbinder by trade; had suffered 



662 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

four years from cancer of the stomach, of which disease he 
died and was buried in Cincinnati. Both had had the insur- 
ance poHcy of $2,000 on the Hfe of Marcus L. Johnson, and 
both had sent it to George E. Johnson to collect. They both 
knew George E. Johnson, of Leavenworth; he had visited at 
both their houses in Cincinnati, and both claimed him as their 
brother-in-law. No. i explained an agreement between the 
two brothers, Marcus L. and George E. relating to the insur- 
ance. It was, that as Marcus was unable to continue the pay- 
ment of premiums, George E. was to do so, and for this was 
to receive one-half the avails of the policy for his advance and 
trouble. In conformity with this agreement, George E. had 
sent her this package containing $748.91, which was the bal- 
ance due to her after deducting George E. Johnson's share of 
$1,000, the $200 advanced to her soon after her husband's 
death, and a premium note of Marcus L. Johnson for $49, and 
$2.09 accrued interest. No. 2 claimed to have received $200 
from George E. Johnson, it having been advanced by him to 
her as a portion of the insurance money. She produced letters 
from George E. Johnson, and a letter from Mr. Somerville, the 
Leavenworth agent of the insurance company, who was also 
agent of the express company, which seemed to support her 
claim. The women were questioned separately and apart, and 
each adhered to her story without variation or contradiction. 
No. I offered to produce the photograph of her husband; so, 
accompanied by the sheriff, she went to her house and soon 
returned with the likeness of Marcus L. Johnson. This pic- 
ture being shown to No. 2, she at once declared it to be a 
likeness of her husband, and she then produced a photograph 
of a child four to five years of age, which she said was a picture 
of her son, and in which her attorney saw a strong resemblance 
to the photographed face of Marcus L. Johnson. 

As both parties claimed George E. Johnson as their brother- 
in-law, both knew him, and he had visited each of them at 
their houses, it was suggested that the photographs of the two 
women should be taken and sent to the superintendent of the 
express company at Leavenworth, who was to be requested to 
see George E. Johnson and ascertain if his brother had two 
wives, and if not, which of these women was his wife. Acting 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 663 

upon this suggestion, their photographs were at once secured 
— both readily consenting — and were sent as indicated, together 
with full particulars of the facts in the case. 

Pending the transmission of these photographs and the 
report therefrom, the Cincinnati agent of the express company 
determined to pursue the investigation still further. His opin- 
ion had not changed from the first, being fully convinced that 
Mrs. Rhoda Johnson who received the money was the only 
wife of Marcus L. Johnson, and that the other woman was an 
impostor. The result of his investigation, as recounted by 
himself, was published in the Cincinnati newspapers of the day. 
In the course of his account he said: "Taking with me a 
detective officer, we went in search of the woman who made 
the claim on the express company, and found her acting as 
cook in a low den of prostitution. I took down her statements 
very fully in writing, questioning and cross-questioning her. 
I found her memory very defective as to dates and several 
material facts. My examination was more thorough than at 
any other time. She claims to have had two children; one 
dead and the other in Indiana, she don't know where. Her 
whole statement bears on its face an attempt to swindle, con- 
cocted by other parties; and I believe this woman has imposed 
upon Major Blackburn, who undertook her case not knowing 
all the facts. This woman has obtained from the post-office 
quite a number of letters belonging to Mrs. Rhoda Johnson, 
and admitted to me that she did not know whether they 
belonged to herself or not." 

Two days after the publication of these facts, Major Black- 
burn informed a newspaper reporter that, upon reading the card 
of the express company's agent in relation to the case, he sent 
an officer for his client and had her brought to his office; that 
he then told her plainly there could be no more lying about 
the matter; she having shown herself to be an impostor, he 
should insist on her telling him the truth of the matter, and 
confessing who had instigated the false statements she had 
given; that she then fully acknowledged her guilty conduct, 
admitted she never had been married to Marcus L. Johnson, 
nor had ever seen him or his brother George E. Johnson; 
that her name was Rhoda Berry ; and a man named John John- 



664 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

son had put her up to getting the letters from the post-office 
advertised for Rhoda Johnson, and these letters she had 
obtained and shown to him; that all she knew of the insur- 
ance, or of the parties interested, she obtained from these letters. 
About the same time Mrs. Rhoda Johnson received from 
Major Blackburn the following letter: 

Office of Prosecuting Attorney, 
Hamilton County, Cincinnati, January 20, 1870. 
Mrs. Rhoda Johnson : 

Madam — A thorough investigation of the matter which we have 
been looking after for some days, has satisfied me that you are the 
legitimate wife of Marcus L. Johnson; that the other woman who 
claimed to be his wife is an impostor and scoundrel; and that her 
conduct in the case has done you great and unmerited injustice. 

I cheerfully make this statement, not because she has basely 
wronged you by her conduct and declarations, but because she has 
so basely imposed upon my confidence by falsehood and fraud. 

Very respectfully, 

C. H. Blackburn. 

MISTAKEN IDENTITY. 

A remarkable instance of mistaken identity occurred at 
Tacoma, State of Washington, in 1889. On the 20th of May 
in that year John M. Poyn, a Cincinnati detective, swore out 
a warrant for the arrest of W. A. Hedden, of Tacoma, charging 
him with having defrauded life insurance companies to the 
extent of $14,000. Bail was fixed at $10,000, and, at the 
request of the detective, examination was deferred for two 
weeks, in order that additional evidence might be obtained 
from Buffalo, N. Y., where the frauds were alleged to have 
been committed. Hedden could not give bonds and was 
placed in jail, where he remained until failure to identify him 
as the real offender led to his release. Strange to say, he was 
taken for Bryant A. Crandall, who, in 1886, lived in Buffalo, 
and had insurance on his life for $14,000. He started for the 
West, and in April it was reported that he had committed 
suicide. 

The facts concerning the alleged suicide were such that the 
companies concerned paid the full amount of the insurance 
to the supposed dead man's relatives. In the fall of 1887 



PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 665 

Crandall was seen in Los Angeles, Cal., by a prominent citizen 
of Bufifalo. The latter reported the fact to the insurance com- 
panies. They combined, and offered a reward of $2,000 for 
the arrest of Crandall. Detectives immediately began to hunt 
for him. Poyn in some way learned that Crandall had been 
in Tacoma several months. On arrival he saw Hedden, who 
resembled Crandall in a remarkable degree, became acquainted 
with him, and went into partnership with him in a land-locating 
agency, doing business all over the Sound country. His 
height, color of eyes, beard, size, and weight exactly coincided 
with Crandall's. On the latter's right foot was a scar over 
four inches in length, the result of a wound accidentally 
inflicted upon himself with an axe when a young man. In 
order to find whether Hedden had such a scar, Poyn proposed 
they should rent a furnished room together, and Hedden 
accepted the proposition. That night, when Hedden disrobed, 
the detective watched his room-mate slowly pull of¥ his socks, 
and, strangely enough, there was a scar. The next day Poyn 
got out his warrant for Hedden, and was sure of his man. 
After he was lodged in jail more positive evidence was needed 
from Bufifalo, and daily the wires were used in securing it. 
Hedden's photograph was taken and sent to Bufifalo, and word 
came back that it was the picture of Crandall. Hedden persist- 
ently asserted his innocence; declared that he owned a farm at 
Lake View, near Rochester, on which his family were living, 
and that he had gone to the far West, like a good many others, 
to make money. 

President Fitch, of the Traders' Bank of Tacoma, formerly 
of Rochester, became interested in Hedden. Mr. Bock, a 
merchant of Bufifalo, who knew Crandall, happened to arrive 
in Tacoma on business. At the request of Mr. Fitch, he went 
to the jail to see Hedden, and said, though Hedden resembled 
Crandall in a remarkable degree, he was not Crandall. Mr. 
Bock swore to his evidence, but the detective was not satisfied. 
The latter telegraphed to the chief of police of Bufifalo asking 
if Bock's word could be believed. The answer came back 
that his evidence could not well be disputed. This settled the 
matter in the minds of Hedden's friends. The same afternoon 
the counsel on both sides closely questioned Hedden, asking 



666 PROBLEMATICAL CASES. 

him fifty or more questions. They then telegraphed to the 
postmaster at Lake View, Hedden's alleged home, and asked 
him to reply to the very same questions they had put to 
Hedden while the prisoner and his counsel, the detective and 
his counsel, were all in the court-room. When the reply from 
the Lake View postmaster was received, his answer to each 
question exactly corroborated the statements made by Hedden, 
and when the long telegram was finished, Mr. Poyn, the detec- 
tive, and his counsel gave up the case, and acknowledged that 
Hedden was not the long-lost Crandall. 

The sequel came in June, 1892, when the real offender was 
captured in Los Angeles. He made a confession to his coun- 
sel, in which he acknowledged that he was Bryant A. Crandall. 
Afterward he admitted his identity and his guilt to a repre- 
sentative of a Press Association. He recited the particulars 
of his disappearance from his home in Bufifalo,.and then said: 

" After leaving my hat on the park bench at Niagara Falls, I 
boarded a train and went to California. Two months after- 
ward I was surprised and amused one day to learn that my 
dead body had been found at the Falls. All this time I was 
sawing wood, as they say; I was, literally, too. I went directly 
to California and hired out as a carpenter. I knew the trade 
well. I had none of the old disappointments out there, no 
worry, no creditors, and no more trials. I had a very easy 
time. Then I got tired of carpentering and went to running 
a stationary engine. I was successful at that, too. I met 
Buffalo people quite frequently, but I had changed so much 
that I did not think they would know me. My hair and beard 
had turned very gray. I lost considerable flesh and my liver 
trouble made me walk lame. I was somehow betrayed and 
delivered into the hands of the police. When I met my 
brother on Sunday I told him who I was, but he did not iden- 
tify me positively. He thought I was Crandall, but was not 
sure." 

His manner, while in jail awaiting trial, was that of a man 
who plumed himself on having done a clever thing. He 
expressed willingness to return to his wife and family if 
they would receive him, but exhibited no sign of remorse for 
his desertion of them. 



SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 6f>7 



SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 

To the superficial observer it may seem incredible that inten- 
tional, self-inflicted wounds, causing mutilation of the person 
or serious disablement, should ever occur. The old army 
surgeon, however, will recall many an instance where, for the 
purpose of obtaining a furlough or a discharge from service, 
such maiming has been practiced. The writer has in mind a 
case which occurred in the early part of our late war, where a 
soldier, a Bohemian, having feigned epilepsy without success, 
shot off his index or trigger-finger, hoping thereby to obtain 
his discharge. He claimed that the injury was purely acci- 
dental, and it having been proved intentional, he then shot 
himself dead. So far from being uncommon or of recent 
occurrence, we have only to recall the fact that in the days 
of the Roman empire the cutting ofif of one's thumb was prac- 
ticed to an alarming extent by those who were forced into the 
military service, and hence we have the term " poltroon," which 
is derived from pollex truncatus. 

It becomes then, in civil as well as in military life, simply 
a question of motive. Not a few instances have occurred 
where self-inflicted wounds by defaulters have been produced 
with the intention of simulating an assault by robbers, thereby 
hoping to divert suspicion from the real thief. Sometimes the 
mere love of notoriety has been a sufficient motive. In all such 
cases, however, the wounds are usually of a superficial nature, 
and exhibit more serious harm done to the clothing than to the 
person. 

On the introduction of accident insurance a broad field was 
opened up to the speculative insurance swindler, and he has not 
been slow to avail himself of it. At first the indemnity ex- 
tended only to a given sum per week in the event of wholly 
disabling accidental injuries. ]\Iore recently the insurance 
companies have widened the range of benefits so as to pay one- 



668 SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 

half, one-third, or some other proportionate part of the princi- 
pal sum insured under the policy, in the event of loss by acci- 
dent of a hand, or a foot, or the sight of an eye. By effecting 
insurance in several different companies so as to cover but a 
short period of time, especially by the purchase of accident 
tickets, a large aggregate amount can be obtained at a trivial 
cost. To a person who has never had his attention directed to 
this subject, it doubtless would be an almost overwhelming 
surprise were he to examine for himself the records and files 
of the claim departments of accident insurance companies, and 
learn for the first time the extent of the impostures therein 
noted, and the ingenuity displayed in attempting to bring them 
to a successful issue. Often with and sometimes without the 
assistance of an action at law, an occasional swindle is, in part 
at least, successfully accomplished ; but as a general rule its true 
character is exposed and the chief actors not infrequently come 
to grief. 

We propose giving a few illustrative cases, and will let the 
first introduce himself by copying his notice of injury, as 
written to the company in which he carried $10,000 accident 
insurance: 

Chicago, July loth, 1893. 
Mr. Rodney Dennis, Secretary. 

Dear Sir — On the evening of July 4th last, while in my room 
alone, I started to load my revolver preparatory to celebrating the 
day by shooting, as my room-mate and friends were doing. While 
so engaged I dropped it accidentally and it was discharged, the ball 
entering my left hand and literally tearing it to pieces; breaking 
three fingers also. I will not be able to resume the discharge of my 
duties for thirty days yet. I do solemnly swear this, the above, to be 
a true statement of facts. Let me hear from you soon, won't you, 
please? Yours truly, 

On receipt of this letter the usual blank forms were sent to 
him, upon which to present his claim. He wrote again as 
follows : 

Chicago, July i6th, 1893. 
Hon. Rodney Dennis, Secretary. 

Dear Sir — Please permit me to acknowledge receipt of your 
indemnity blanks. As I do not know yet how long it will be before 
I can return to work, will it not be a good idea to wait until then 



SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 669 

before sending in my claim, or shall I fill it out now and send to 
you? Another thing I wish to ask: My expenses here for living are 
about $ioo per month, and as my physician informs me that it will 
be at least four or five and possibly six weeks before I can begin to 
use my hands, I would much prefer going home. It is cheaper, and 
besides I can see my folks. Now, then, if I do that, what steps must 
I take toward collecting my indemnity? 

I am, with the greatest respect, 

Yours truly, 

The insurance company sent these letters to its Chicago 
Agency, and this led to a full investigation of the case. The 
injury was apparent, and its severity was substantially as al- 
leged. It was ascertained that Hicks was insured in several 
companies, and that one company had settled with him. In 
effecting that settlement, it was learned that he had made state- 
ments as to the manner in which the alleged accident happened 
which were materially different from what appeared in his let- 
ters to Secretary Dennis. A sharp cross-examination of the 
claimant followed, which resulted in his utter confusion. He 
tried to cover his falsehoods by repeating other and more 
flagrant ones, until he was completely overwhelmed with the 
hopelessness of the situation, and in his demoralization he ad- 
mitted that the whole affair was not accidental at all, but was a 
scheme deliberately planned and carried out for the purpose of 
defrauding the insurance companies. Later on, upon more 
fully realizing the seriousness of the situation in which he was 
involved, he sought to make amends by writing out a frank 
confession, giving details and particulars, from which we make 
the following extracts: 

••To THE Travelers Insurance Company : 

" The idea of * working ' the insurance companies was 

developed in my mind last winter. My plan then was merely self- 
destruction; but as the scheme grew, and as I came to see by a 
careful study of them what the policies covered, I recognized a 
chance to make what I had been looking for, namely, ' big money ' 
for myself by losing a hand accidentally (?) and so I increased my 
line of insurance accordingly to $20,000, and had I been successful I 
would have collected $7,500 for the loss of my left hand. I was per- 
fectly satisfied to part with it for that price, and I was disgusted when 
I found that the shot I had put through my hand had not hopelessly 
crushed it, and I did all I could to induce the surgeon who attended 



670 SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 

me to amputate it any way. . . . Now, please do not imagine me a 
fool, or insane, or a man who has acted hastily, for I have an active 
brain, a perfectly sound mind, and I gave many serious hours to 
the perfection of my scheme. 

At the time of this occurrence Mr. H. was about twenty- 
two years of age, of genteel appearance, good address, a ready 
writer, fairly well educated, and occupied a responsible official 
position at the International Exposition then being held in 
Chicago. 

It is seldom that a person guilty of a crime of this nature 
will come forward and make a clean breast of it, as was done in 
this instance, even though confronted with indisputable evi- 
dence against him. At the most, there can be obtained only a 
tacit admission or a feeble denial of guilt. As a rule the final 
consideration of each case depends upon its circumstantial evi- 
dence, and by that alone it must be weighed in most of the 
illustrative cases we present in this chapter. 

Only a brief outline of these cases need be given, for it is our 
object at this time to disclose the nature of the injuries sus- 
tained and the manner in which they were inflicted, rather than 
to produce evidence going to show that they were intentional 
and not accidental. 

At the Lyons, N. Y., agencies of two insurance companies, 
one B. V. D. purchased accident tickets to the total amount 
of $12,000 insurance, to cover twenty-four hours from date, 
at a cost of $1.00 premium. The tickets expired at 7 o'clock 
P. M., January 3rd, 1890. At 6.50 P. M. of that day his 
right foot and leg were crushed by the wheels of a passing 
freight train. The injured man said: ''I was standing at the 
crossing in Lyons, waiting for a train to pass. About one-half 
had gone by when my coat tail caught and threw me under the 
train." The injury necessitated amputation about four inches 
above the ankle joint. His insurance entitled him to one-third 
of the principal sum insured in the event of the accidental loss 
of one foot. Investigation showed that Dunham was but little 
known in that locality. He had no money, and had borrowed 
$1.00 "to pay his fare to Syracuse." He probably used the 



SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 671 

borrowed dollar to purchase the insurance tickets. The alleged 
accident occurred in the dark, and when there was no eye-wit- 
ness. He had been a cripple from childhood, the foot being 
paralyzed and often requiring the aid of crutches. It was 
generally believed that the injury was deliberately planned. 
He gladly accepted a small sum of money, in lieu of that to 
which he would have been entitled had the claim been an 
honest one, and went on his way rejoicing. 

W. J. C. of Fulton, Ky., aged thirty-one years, sustained 
injuries of the left hand and wrist resulting in amputation at 
middle third of forearm. His account of alleged accident is 
as follows : — " In starting to board a railway train for Mayfield, 
Ky., on the 2ist day of September, 1892, at about 10 o'clock 
P. M., I caught my foot under a side-track rail and fell forward 
under the smoking car. In falling I struck my head against 
side of car, rendering me unconscious for 20 or 30 seconds. 
When I regained consciousness I began to push myself from 
under the coach and off the track, but before I could do so my 
left hand was caught by trucks of coach three or four inches 
above the wrist, and crushed so badly as to require amputation, 
which was done about two hours after the accident occurred." 
It was very dark at the time. No one saw him fall, but his 
cries were heard, and prompt assistance reached him. He had 
recently taken out accident insurance to the amount of $16,000, 
some of it ticket insurance covering only two days. He was 
vv^ithout means to pay ordinary living expenses, and assigned 
his insurance tickets to his surgeons to secure payment for 
medical attendance. Orders of attachment by creditors were 
soon served on the several insurance companies to answer as 
garnishees, and there was a lively scramble to secure the pay- 
ment of what had evidently been regarded by his creditors as 
worthless accounts. Compromise settlements were effected 
with his creditors, what little they thus obtained being regarded 
by them as so much clear gain. 

One A. J. C. of Hiawatha, Kan., obtained $18,000 accident 
insurance, in two-day tickets written by three different com- 
panies. His story was : " I was riding in a buggy carrying a 



672 SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 

gun. Team shied near a railroad bridge, and in my effort to 
prevent colliding with one of the posts in the bridge the gun 
was discharged, the charge passing through left leg near ankle 
joint, which resulted in amputation of foot." An investigation 
followed, which satisfied all who had to do with it that the 
claim was not an honest one. 

W. S. F. of Coudersport, Pa., forty years of age, invested 
$1.00 in the purchase of $6,000 accident insurance covering two 
days. While this insurance was in force, Feb. 26th, 1891, he 
took a shot-gun and went out into the open fields. His staten 
ment was : " I was going down a steep hill and slipped and fell 
down. In trying to save myself the gun was discharged, and 
a charge of shot passed through my left hand, necessitating 
amputation at the wrist joint." There was no eye-witness. 
Report of investigation states that the place where this occurred 
was as good a one as could be selected if the person sought to 
avoid being seen. There were some boys twenty-five or thirty- 
rods distant, but they were hidden from view by a growth of 
brush. The injured man was without means of support and 
hopelessly in debt. Numerous garnishee writs were at once 
served by creditors who hoped to benefit by the insurance. 
Investigation made it sufficiently clear that the shooting was 
intentional. 

F. C. M. of Hastings, Neb., aged forty-two years, obtained 
$26,000 accident insurance, it being placed in five different com- 
panies, and at about 9 o'clock P. M., June 17th, 1890, he sus- 
tained bodily injuries requiring amputation of his left hand. 
He relates the occurrence as follows: "At the O. & M. R. R. 
crossing, on Hastings Avenue, I tripped on the sidewalk, 
pitched forward, and in trying to save myself my left arm 
was crushed by wheels of a train then passing." It was quite 
dark at the time; no eye-witnesses. His reason for taking so 
much accident insurance was that he was " afraid of dogs biting 
him." Some of this insurance was for one day only, and of 
course was obtained at a trifling cost. The story of falHng 
under the train as alleged was not credited by those who were 
familiar with the locality and all the circumstances surrounding 
the so-called accident. 



SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 673 

F. D. R. of Indianapolis, Ind., aged nineteen years, told this 
story: " I was in my room, when a gun I was handling slipped 
out of my hand. In falling to the floor the hammer must have 
struck against a piece of furniture with force enough to cock 
and let fall the hammer. The charge of shot entered my left 
hand, tearing it so badly as to require amputation above the 
wrist." He had first obtained accident insurance in three 
companies, amounting to $16,000. He tried to obtain more 
in one of the companies, but the agent declined to write it. 
He then purchased at a gunsmith's a single-barrel shot-gun, 
for which he paid $10. After he had shot his hand off he sent 
the gun back with request to return him the $10, which was 
done. The case had all the ear-marks of an intentional, self- 
inflicted injury, and was so treated. 

R. P. of Wichita, Kan., a plasterer, $20,500 accident insur- 
ance, says it happened to him in this manner: " I was out hunt- 
ing and had sat down to rest, and as I arose my legs were 
somewhat cramped, and as there was some ice and snow on 
the ground I fell, and in my fall the gun went off. My hand 
was so badly shattered it had to be taken of¥ at once just 
above the wrist." Another person had been out with him, 
but at the time of the shooting was on the opposite side of the 
hedge, so there was no observer of the alleged accident; but 
he was conveniently near at hand to render assistance in the 
emergency. On investigation it was regarded as a cleverly 
planned self-shooting affair. 

W. H. H. of Everett, Neb., aged thirty-three years, $12,000 
accident insurance. His statement is: ''I was out hunting 
December 19th, 1894, and was tripped by a stick getting be- 
tween my legs, causing me to fall, when my gun discharged, 
shooting my left hand, so that it was amputated at the wrist." 
On investigation it was ascertained that this man was *' a gen- 
eral good-for-nothing, shiftless, and never worked steadily." 
He had obtained $45 weekly indemnity on an accident ticket in 
May previous, and his claim at that time was looked upon with 
suspicion by the insurance company. At the time of pur- 
chasing one of the insurance tickets, just before shooting off 



674 SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 

his hand, he told the agent he was going to Mexico for his 
health. 

Accident insurance amounting to $25,000, distributed among 
five different companies, was taken out by J. B. of Springfield, 
Mass., and not long afterward he sustained serious bodily 
injuries which, he states under oath, were caused in the fol- 
lowing manner: "On the morning of February i8th, 1895, 
between the hours of 2 and 2.30 A. M., I received injuries 
which resulted in the loss of my right hand and wrist and left 
foot and ankle. I went to the railroad station in Springfield 
for the purpose of taking the train which leaves at 2.20 A. M. 
via the N. Y., N. H. and H. R. R. I was going to South 
Norwalk, Conn., on business. I entered the day coach and 
took my seat. I found the air of the coach somewhat close, 
and arose from my seat and passed out of the rear of the car 
for the purpose of getting a seat in one of the sleepers which 
were in the rear. While passing from the platform of the day 
coach to the platform of the sleeper, I either slipped 
or stumbled, which I cannot tell, and was thrown or 
fell from the platform to the ground — I think from the 
platform of the sleeper — both gates on the platform of 
the car from which I fell, or was thrown, being open. In 
some way, but just in what way I cannot tell, I was drawn 
under the trucks of the sleeper. The wheels of one or both 
sleepers passed over and crushed my right hand and left foot. 
At the time I fell or was thrown from the platform the train 
was moving slowly. The injuries which I received were so 
severe that it was necessary to amputate both my hand and 
foot, the hand being amputated a few inches above the wrist, 
and the foot a few inches above the ankle joint." Under the 
policies he held he was entitled to the full principal sum insured 
— $25,000 — if the facts were as set forth in his affidavit, and 
also entitled to such damages as he might be able to recover 
from the railway company. A very careful investigation of 
this case was made. It was ascertained that the train in ques- 
tion was the regular night express from Boston to New York, 
and that it reached Springfield that night on time. It con- 
sisted of a baggage car, smoking car, ordinary passenger car. 



SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 675 

and two sleeping cars. The tracks run nearly east and west 
in front of the Springfield passenger station, which station is 
on the south side. At that point the track is perfectly straight, 
in as perfect condition in every respect as it is possible for a 
track to be laid, and there can be no jolt or jar of a train in 
moving over those rails, whicli could be attributed to any 
defect or faulty construction of the roadbed. That particular 
train has been running for a long while, and it customarily 
stops in pretty nearly the same spot on arrival in Springfield. 
The extreme variation found, after repeated observations, did 
not exceed twenty feet, and the average was less than half 
that distance. If the train stopped on the night in question, 
according to its usual custom, the forward truck of the first 
sleeper stood just where the injured man was found lying after 
the train had passed. He says that he left the coach in which 
he had been sitting and walked out the rear door to enter the 
sleeper. The train was then on its way to New York. Pre- 
sumably it moved faster than he walked, and with every step 
he took, the train was taking him further away from the sta- 
tion. By the time he could have reached the car platforms and 
have fallen under the trucks, he would have been many feet dis- 
tant from the place where he was found. At that time of night 
there are few or no passengers either to leave or enter the 
train at Springfield. The car platforms are provided with gates. 
On arrival at Springfield the gates on the south side of train 
were opened by the brakeman, while tbose on the north side 
were left closed. The train hands change at that station. Be- 
fore starting the train from the station the conductor, who was 
on the south side of the train, saw that there were no passen- 
gers to enter, and then gave the usual call and signal to start. 
The brakemen boarded the train at their respective platforms 
and closed the gates after them. After it had started, the train 
proceeded on its way with no knowledge of what happened to 
Mr. B. Immediately after the train had passed, the injured 
man was seen lying upon the north side of the track. Except- 
ing at the points where his limbs were crushed, his clothing 
was not disturbed or soiled. He had not been dragged by the 
train at all. It was next to impossible for a man to lie down, 
either voluntarily or unintentionally, so that the car wheels 



676 SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 

shall pass over his right wrist and left ankle, but it is easy 
enough to see that when the left foot has been placed, volun- 
tarily or otherwise, so that a car wheel will crush it, the right 
hand may instinctively and involuntarily be thrust out and 
caught when the critical moment arrived to crush the foot. 
The injured man made a good recovery. He was found to be 
almost hopelessly bankrupt, and his creditors were eager for 
the insurance money. A portion of it he assigned, and trustee 
processes were served to cover much of it. One of the insur- 
ance companies that had not been served with a garnishee 
summons effected a settlement with the injured man by paying 
him about two-fifths of his claim. The creditors settled their 
assignments on payment of a trifle more than that. Whether 
the facts were as set forth by the insured or not, it was a ter- 
rible loss to him; and it is well that human nature is such that 
it will extend to him the deepest commiseration and pity, with- 
out stopping to inquire too closely into causes and motives, 

S. M. S. of Fairview, Pa., is " a nailer by trade, but on 
account of work being slack, he had lately been engaged in 
knitting stockings on a small scale and peddling them through 
the country." This man obtained $26,000 accident insurance, 
and on the i6th of September, 1890, at near midnight, he sus- 
tained injuries which he says were caused as follows: "I was 
approaching and was near to the end of the main platform to 
take the train, when I was caught by the train striking my 
basket and knocking me down. The cars crushed my right 
foot. I had basket on one arm and book satchel on the other 
arm; had been peddling stockings and selling books. My 
right leg was crushed and afterward amputated." There was 
no eye-witness to the alleged accident. Investigation satisfied 
all parties interested in making it that the claim for indemnity 
under his insurance policies was not an honest one, but for 
the purpose of effecting a settlement, a small percentage of the 
amount claimed was paid to him by the several companies. 

Twenty-five thousand dollars accident insurance in five dif- 
ferent companies was written upon J. W. W. of York, Neb., 
and a few days later he went out hunting for game. His 



SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 677 

success is stated by himself as follows: ''I had shot a quail 
and was running, and dropped the gun, being anxious to bag 
the quail. Gun was discharged by coming in contact with the 
ground, as I received the shot instantaneously with the drop- 
ping of the gun. The discharge passed through my ankle." 
His foot was amputated four inches above ankle. This little 
town in Nebraska had quite an epidemic of this class of acci- 
dents at about this time. 

W. T., a milkman in Detroit, on the 27th of September, 
1888, received an injury, caused " by the accidental discharge 
of a gun." Amputation above the wrist followed. He was 
insured in four companies. Investigation disclosed that " he 
was running a small milk business (peddling milk), and that 
he was financially embarrassed. The amount which he expects 
to realize for the loss of a hand will be quite a fortune to him." 

J. S. of Washington, Ind., age 24 years, purchased a one-day 
accident ticket, March 8th, 1888, and at about 11 o'clock at 
night he went down to the railway and was hurt, as he says, 
" by some substance projecting four or five feet from the side 
of a passing freight car in a freight train, which projecting sub- 
stance struck and threw me down and my left hand fell on the 
rail, and the wheels of the car ran over it and it had to be 
amputated." No one witnessed the occurrence, but the injured 
man was found lying down on the ground immediately after- 
ward. So far as could be learned on careful inquiry, there 
was no unusual " projecting substance " on the train as alleged. 

E. J. S. was in London, Ont, September 21st, 1891, and late 
in the evening of that date he suffered a fearful mangling of 
both hands, which resulted in the amputation of the right 
hand above the wrist and of the middle and fourth fingers of the 
left hand. His story of how it happened is as follows: " I was 
walking along a street near the railway. There was a train 
moving from the depot in the same direction as I was going. 
Part of the train had passed me when I heard footsteps behind 
me. I was immediately seized by some unknown person, who 
passed his arm around my neck, garroted me, robbed me, and 



678 SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 

threw me under the passing train. I think I pushed myself 
back off the rails, and while my hands were still on the rails, 
the wheels of the train passed over them. I remember spring- 
ing up and running, and I was sitting by the fence when parties 
came to me, I having called and shouted for help." 

A few days prior to this he obtained insurance in five com- 
panies, amounting to over $20,000, some of it being short- 
term ticket insurance. Before the insurance companies had 
taken any steps toward an investigation, the story of assault 
and robbery, as alleged, was generally discredited. As a por- 
tion of the train had alreay passed before the assault was made, 
it was found to be an impossibility for so much to be accom- 
plished before the remainder of the train would have wholly 
passed him. The train was not a lengthy one, and although 
running at a moderate rate of speed at the time, it was moving 
altogefher too lively for him to have been thrown under it 
and escape with his life. It was learned that his hands had 
been for some time seriously impaired by disease. The claim 
which was presented under his insurance policies was at first 
disallowed on the ground of fraud through deliberate self- 
mutilation; but finally a compromise settlement was effected 
by paying little, if any, more than the cost of defending an 
action at law. 

W. T. S. of Toronto, Ont., a commercial traveler, sustained 
loss of left hand on the evening of May 3d, 1895. His state- 
ment is: "I went to the Union Station for the purpose of 
mailing a letter. The letter-box for mailing letters on train 
is on the door or side of postoffice car. The train was about 
starting, and I was stepping forward to put the letter in the 
box, when I tripped over an obstruction and fell with my left 
arm across the rail. The wheel of the car passed over it." 
The postal car was not in the station, but was out in the yard 
where no passengers had occasion or business to go. 

It was nine o'clock at night, and of course there were no 
immediate eye-witnesses in that locality to see just how it 
happened. The injured man was heavily overinsured, having 
taken out poHcies in eight accident insurance companies. Only 
circumstantial evidence could be obtained to discredit the 



SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 679 

claim, and a compromise settlement was effected, in variable 
sums, by the several companies. 

In all of the preceding cases it will be observed that the 
bodily injury sustained has resulted in loss of hand or foot; 
and it becomes an interesting study to consider what relation 
this particular class of injuries bears to accident insurance. 
In this chapter we have dealt only with cases wherein there 
was more or less reason to suppose that the injuries were 
intentionally self-inflicted, and, therefore, at this time we may 
narrow down the inquiry to a consideration, from that stand- 
point, of the group of injuries so classified. 

The enlargement of the benefits under accident policies in 
the manner indicated was not generally adopted by insurance 
companies until during the year 1887. ^^ was first made a 
feature of annual policies only; but on examination of the loss 
experience under accident tickets it was found that accidental 
bodily injuries, resulting in amputation of an entire hand or 
foot, had occurred to ticket-holders so seldom that it probably 
affected the total monetary loss to the companies very incon- 
siderably, if at all. It was then decided, by one company at 
least, to incorporate the same features in its insurance tickets. 
Less than four years was sufficient time to convince the com- 
pany that the practice was not only disastrous to accident 
underwriting, but against public policy. In view of such re- 
sults, it was eHminated from the tickets, and has since been 
restricted to regular policies. 

In these four years it was found that the company referred to 
was called upon to pay one-third of the principal sum insured 
under thirty-three insurance tickets for the loss of a left hand by 
each one so insured. For the loss of right hands there were 
only four insurance tickets that had become claims during the 
same period of time. This is significant when we find that the 
tickets gave the insured as much indemnity for loss of his left 
as for his right hand. 

That there is greater liability to loss of left than of right 
hands in the general run of accidents has been clearly dis- 
proved by experience in writing practically the same kind of 
insurance, but for small amounts, upon large numbers of 



680 SELF-MUTILATION IN ACCIDENT INSURANCE. 

workingmen, including thousands of railway employes. Pnis 
experience covered not only the same four years' time as did 
that of the ticket insurance, but also the subsequent four years, 
and is still going on. This insurance is general, and extends 
to accidents of occupation and to those of every-day life and 
activity as well. During eight years it was found that thirty- 
nine had sustained loss of left hand and fifty loss of right hand, 
the latter being largely in excess. 

Since the loss-of-limb feature has been abolished in the 
insurance tickets, it has been found that the amputation of 
hands and feet as the result of accidents to the holders of such 
tickets is of as rare occurrence as it was before such special 
insurance was written. These significant facts cannot be satis- 
factorily explained away, and they confirm the impression 
that there is no great moral hazard in writing short-term 
ticket insurance of the character indicated. 



INDEX. 



PAGE 

Abbott, William '. 35 

Ablay, Alfred 481 

Ablay, Leonie 481 

Accetta, Anthony 153 

Alger, Elisha 15 

Armstrong, John M 390 

Austin, John C 652 

Batchelor, B. M 35 

Belfast Scandal 62 

Blackburn Gamblers 74 

Boswell, alias Howe 94 

Brandt, Israel 53 

Brantley-Eskridge 358 

Brantley, John H 358 

Brennan, Mrs. Lizzie 494 

Brown, Jim 29 

Brown, Joseph 340 

Bryan, Martin L 102 

California Incident 469 

Callahan, Martin 53 

Callender, William 506 

Castelnau, Henri 17 

Chatterji, Rajkisto 44 

Clement, Joseph L 138 

Colvocoresses, G. M 507 

Crandall, Bryant A 664 

Davis, John B 37 

Davis, Mary 37 

Delamar, J. C 59 

Delamar, S. D 59 

Desbouis, Chas. A 15 

Dillon, James 151 

Donation Party 76 

Douat, Vital 32 

Duarte, Anacleto 474 

Dudley, Mary 30 

Dunlop, Robert 62 

Dwight, Walton 581 

Elliott, Jeremiah 149 

Eskridge, Joseph N 358 

Evans, Franklin B 186 

First Fraud 8 

Flannagan, Mrs. C 501 

Folk, Charles A 131 



PAGE 

Fonseca, F. X 4T4 

Fox, Robert 47 

Fraker, George W 145 

Francey, Dr 16 

Frost, Elizabeth 498 

Fry, Mary 52 

Fuller, T. W 12 

Geddes (Brisbane) 152 

Ging, Katharine 440 

Goss, Winfleld S 192 

Goss-Udderzook 192 

Graveyard Transactions 53 

Gregg, William B 150 

Grunbaum (Neusohl) 42 

Hambrough, W. D. C 603 

Hartung, Bernard 435 

Hassell,C.R 57 

Hayward, Harry 440 

Hearns, James 134 

Redden, W. A 664 

Hendryx, Henry C 417 

Higgins, Mrs. M 501 

Hillmon, John W 173 

Hillmon, Sallie E 173 

Holmes, H. H 450 

Hoyos, Figue 40 

Hoyos, Hippoly te 40 

Hunter- Armstrong 390 

Hunter, Benjamin 390 

Hurd, A. A 486 

Hurter, (Boston) 89 

Johnson, Marcus L 659 

Johnson, Rhoda 659 

Jones, John 155 

Joniaux, Marie Therese 481 

Kendall, C. B 12 

King, John J 27 

Klock, H. A 45 

Kofiord, Mrs. M. M 497 

Kostrauch, Louis 38 

Lecomte (Orgeval) 475 

Lee, John Chirk 48 

Leppen, Joseph 92 

Lucas, Charles A 149 



682 



INDEX. 



PAGB 

Martinet, Alexander 17 

Maybrick, Florence E 646 

Maybrick, James 646 

McCorrnick, Charles 114 

McFadden, Sarah 35 

McLeod, Donald 137 

McNutt, J. W 429 

Metz, Juliana 19 

Meyer, H. C. W 401 

Molly Magulreism 27 

Monson, Alfred J 603 

Morris, Frankie 486 

Murray, Dr 20 

Noe, Levi T 59 

Norman, Frank C 498 

North Carolina Frauds 57 

O'Brien, Squire ... 45 

Olnyi, Bela 564 

Orr, James S 62 

Palmer, William 182 

Pauw, Madame.. 433 

Pennsylvania Epidemic 51 

Pieper, Joel 140 

Poinsett, Mrs. N. J 486 

Pommerais, Count 433 

Prouteau, Marie 17 

Raber, Joseph 53 

Radloff, William 38 

Rainf orth, Richard 13 

Reinart, Emma 52 

Richardson, Frank 35 

Richardson, N. S 35 

Robinson, Mrs. S. J 493 

Rubio, Mariano 167 

Ruak, William M 567 



PAGE 

Sargent-Allen 83 

Scheurer, Baron 17 

Self-Mutilation 667 

Shann, Mrs. M. C 495 

Shepherd, George 80 

Silverman, Wolf 43 

Smith, John 91 

Smy the, Chestnutte 63 

Snyder, Monroe 527 

Springstein, Hermann 478 

Stevens, Daniel 31 

Stevens, Mary E 21 

Stewart, Angle 340 

Strohm, Geo. W 152 

S venson (Carlscrona) 46 

Thrun, Ferdinand J 158 

Tomatscheck, Franz 32 

IJdderzook, Wm. E 192 

Uhliug, Dr 33 

Vandegrif t, Mrs 496 

Van Den Kerchove, J 481 

Van der Linden, Mrs 502 

Wackerle, Walburga 620 

Wackerle, William 620 

Wagner, Daniel L 52 

Wahler, Hugo 31 

Waldron, Patrick 27 

Wallis, Jacob C 550 

West, Isaac C, Jr ; . 422 

White, Mary 27 

Whiteling, Mrs. S. J 492 

Winner, (Kansas City) 429 

Winters, Mrs 498 

Zotter, (Graz) 477 



